i mostly called it, i just want to point out how i got to where i got to and what went wrong where it went wrong. my predictions were..
liberals: 160-170
conservatives: 95-100
ndp: ~45
bloc: ~35 - but i saw this as a max.
the liberals overperformed in quebec, so that's the major thing that i got wrong. otherwise, it would have been dead on.
error for quebec: the quebec polls were just impossible, near the end. the correct answer was "there are four parties in the margin of error, and the result is unpredictable". but, you can't do that. you need to pick something, even if you're aware it's really just a guess. aggregates break when you have a lot of movement near the end because they're designed to be conservative (as in not change a lot). i thought i picked up a bloc surge over the last 36 hours, and was guessing it would be something like libs 30, ndp 25, bloc 25, cons 15. i actually correctly pulled out low conservative turnout (or unchanged turnout since 2011), which was in direct contradiction to the media narrative; it struck me as absolute bollocks. so, i was thinking that the split would let the bloc come up the middle in many ridings, and leave the ndp with ~15. so, my quebec predictions were: bloc ~35, libs ~25, ndp ~15, cons ~5. what we actually got in quebec was libs 35, ndp 25, bloc 20, cons 20 - which let the liberals sweep. NOBODY picked that up.
almost nobody. i actually picked it up, in noticing that the ndp decrease seemed to primarily moving to the undecideds. but, then the polling firms stopped publishing that, and i was stuck in the dark.
i think that, when the dust settles and the numbers are crunched, what we will find out is that the liberals got a boost on a low turnout in quebec amongst left-leaning sovereigntist voters. people just rejected everything and tuned out. that is the reason that none of the polls seemed to have them so high in their published numbers; if you look at their unpublished numbers, i think it's something that will come out in a distinct swing from ndp to "they're all terrible, i'm staying home and watching the habs game."
errors for ontario: i predicated 90+ seats for the liberals in ontario and -25 for the conservatives. we ended up with 80 for the liberals and 33 for the conservatives. this is better than the models, but still off by about ten seats.
i got to 90 seats by looking at the 2004 federal election, which had the following numbers:
libs: 44.7
cons: 31.5
ndp: 18.1
that seemed to be very similar to what we were seeing in the polling. it netted the liberals 75 seats in 2004; there have been 15 seats added since, mostly in urban spaces, so i added it up to get to 90+. i also suspected the liberals were going to crest over 45, which made me feel ok about the + part. if you check a map of 2004, that would give the liberals a nearly clean sweep all the way around toronto (including brantford, milton, durham, thornilll, markham-unionville, barrie and kitchener-conestoga to name a few), some of hamilton and most of northern ontario.
actual numbers were:
libs: 44.8
cons: 35.0
ndp: 16.6
so, we see the cause of error here: the conservatives polled higher than expected in the gta. nobody had them as high as 35. northern ontario mirrored the 2004 election well, and they actually did better this time around in the 613 than they did in 2004. but that 3.5% difference for the conservatives (clearly at the expense of the ndp) was the ten point difference.
i still beat the models, though.
errors for alberta: i was arguing that the uniform swing was naive and overestimating conservative support; based on the polling, most of calgary and all of edmonton should have been in play. this was based on the idea of the conservatives polling at 53% province wide, which is what the aggregates were suggesting. in the end, they polled at 60% over the province. if you had plugged 60% into those models, they would not have predicted any seats for the liberals (and may have even handed over linda duncan's seat).
6/66 = 9%. doubled is 18%. this, ironically, recreates numbers that are closer to what the models were producing - but it's a total fluke & coincidence.
so, conservatives were being underpolled in alberta. it could have been a last minute swing back, even. i based a calculation on it. it didn't work out because the data was inaccurate.
that will be it for me, here, for another four years.
deathtokoalas, dvlghgfgjhjhfkhghjklka and all the other pseudonyms are signing out until the next cycle. track down my blogs if you're really upset by this.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-majority-liberal-regional-narrative-1.3279126
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
i just want to comment on the last point, because it's strangely american-centric for a cbc talking head.
the canadian liberal party is the last remaining descendant of the british liberal party, which dominated politics in britain for a large amount of the nineteenth century. america had whigs (although they were very different than british whigs), which actually turned into the republican party. the liberals absorbed new deal keynesian policies when they were fashionable, but they are at their core an ideologically liberal party. they're the party of mills and ricardo and smith.
when americans hear the term "liberal", they think of vietnam protesters or something. but the term "liberal", in context, actually MEANS "free trade". it refers to trade liberalization. at the beginning of the last century, we called it "reciprocity". in fact, the fta (forerunner of nafta) was borne out of a commission created by the elder trudeau, near the end of his tenure. it was our idea, and it has been our idea since before the time of wilfred laurier - who was quoted by the new prime minister yesterday, and often quoted by his father.
this is contrasted against tory protectionism.
our constitution, largely written by his father, is very "liberal" as well - in the sense of it being very rooted in individual rights.
the term has changed in the united states to something unrecognizable from it's initial meaning. but the canadian liberal party is essentially unique on this planet in holding relatively close to nineteenth century british classical liberalism.
you may want to think of them as halfway between libertarians and democrats, in the american context.
www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/drove-canadas-liberal-party-election-upset/
the canadian liberal party is the last remaining descendant of the british liberal party, which dominated politics in britain for a large amount of the nineteenth century. america had whigs (although they were very different than british whigs), which actually turned into the republican party. the liberals absorbed new deal keynesian policies when they were fashionable, but they are at their core an ideologically liberal party. they're the party of mills and ricardo and smith.
when americans hear the term "liberal", they think of vietnam protesters or something. but the term "liberal", in context, actually MEANS "free trade". it refers to trade liberalization. at the beginning of the last century, we called it "reciprocity". in fact, the fta (forerunner of nafta) was borne out of a commission created by the elder trudeau, near the end of his tenure. it was our idea, and it has been our idea since before the time of wilfred laurier - who was quoted by the new prime minister yesterday, and often quoted by his father.
this is contrasted against tory protectionism.
our constitution, largely written by his father, is very "liberal" as well - in the sense of it being very rooted in individual rights.
the term has changed in the united states to something unrecognizable from it's initial meaning. but the canadian liberal party is essentially unique on this planet in holding relatively close to nineteenth century british classical liberalism.
you may want to think of them as halfway between libertarians and democrats, in the american context.
www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/drove-canadas-liberal-party-election-upset/
the one thing i seriously got wrong was where the ndp were collapsing *to*. i figured they'd be around 25, but that the swing would go to the bloc. nobody had the liberals at 35 in quebec, but a few had the bloc at 25. so, i pegged the liberals about 160 and the bloc at about 35. that 25 seat difference on the 5 point swing in quebec, which nobody picked up, is what got me.
otherwise, i think my decision to base ontario results on the 2004 federal election rather than any kind of models (which, by the way they work, couldn't pick up the dramatic swings in cambridge or st. catherines or durham or kitchener or barrie - even if the conservatives squeaked a few of those seats out) was a better overall approach. it was pretty accurate in northern ontario. the conservatives were up a little on 2004 (and relative to most of the polling), and the ndp were down a little. if the conservatives had come down just a tad closer to the polling, the liberals would have won some of those seats - which all the models had as safe conservative seats.
i don't think we'll see another election like this for some time. the lesson is in the uniform distribution not applying well to huge swings. but, it's more on the level of requiring the caveat that the models are designed to distribute small changes.
i would suggest maybe pushing pollsters to get better sampling frames, though. if you could split ontario into three or four frames, you'd be better able to apply a uniform swing to those frames. another idea is to use the last five or six elections as a base, rather than just the last one, and then base the distribution on where you've calculated it's most likely to exist based on a broader survey of where it's existed previously. that's why i went looking for a close match in 2004 to compensate for the huge swing; but, what would have been better would have been to integrate new and old data together.
www.tooclosetocall.ca/2015/10/performance-of-polls-for-2015-federal.html3:38
otherwise, i think my decision to base ontario results on the 2004 federal election rather than any kind of models (which, by the way they work, couldn't pick up the dramatic swings in cambridge or st. catherines or durham or kitchener or barrie - even if the conservatives squeaked a few of those seats out) was a better overall approach. it was pretty accurate in northern ontario. the conservatives were up a little on 2004 (and relative to most of the polling), and the ndp were down a little. if the conservatives had come down just a tad closer to the polling, the liberals would have won some of those seats - which all the models had as safe conservative seats.
i don't think we'll see another election like this for some time. the lesson is in the uniform distribution not applying well to huge swings. but, it's more on the level of requiring the caveat that the models are designed to distribute small changes.
i would suggest maybe pushing pollsters to get better sampling frames, though. if you could split ontario into three or four frames, you'd be better able to apply a uniform swing to those frames. another idea is to use the last five or six elections as a base, rather than just the last one, and then base the distribution on where you've calculated it's most likely to exist based on a broader survey of where it's existed previously. that's why i went looking for a close match in 2004 to compensate for the huge swing; but, what would have been better would have been to integrate new and old data together.
www.tooclosetocall.ca/2015/10/performance-of-polls-for-2015-federal.html3:38
just some final notes on the election.
the liberals won by doing three things:
1) getting back a good proportion of their base from the ndp, which had been wandering left since 2004.
2) cementing the red tory vote.
3) taking advantage of apathy towards sovereignty in quebec.
but, they peaked at the right time and got a lot of pragmatic support. you could call it a perfect storm, or a perfect planetary alignment. expect polls next month to wander dramatically.
the conservatives are the easiest to understand because they have the strongest base. the conservative base is around 27-30%, but sometimes seems a little higher due to low turnout. there's an additional swing of about 6-8% that they can access under ideal circumstances. this separation became clear in 2004, when joe clark endorsed paul martin and actually swung about that much from the new conservatives to the liberals. you can call this the "clark swing", but the traditional term for this is "red tories". what is useful about the 2004 election is that it provided a direct measurement of how many red tories there are out there.
the fact that the conservatives ran about 30% (a touch higher due to moderately low turnout, albeit higher than the last few elections) indicates that the liberals got almost all of that red tory support.
but, the reality that the conservatives were flatlined at 30 the whole time indicates that the red tories seem to have decided on the liberals a good way out from the election. dominant factors were likely related to corruption - duffy and things of the sort.
the liberals can hold these votes for long periods, but they are moderate conservatives at their core and will bolt back at the first opportunity. they would prefer to vote conservative, unless the option seems too extreme. i expect the conservatives to elect jason kenney, who has a bad reputation amongst these voters and could keep them voting liberal for quite a while. but, if they pick a more moderate option then this support will flow back. further, they will react badly to certain social issues. they're going to lean towards the liberals on a lot of social issues, including multiculturalism, abortion, the death penalty and marijuana legalization. but, an underlooked factor in their swing back to the conservatives in 2006, in addition to the sponsorship scandal, was probably the gay marriage ruling and the martin government's acceptance of it. if the media finds some kind of a scandal, at least a part of it could swing back pretty quick. and, they may have some reservations about assisted suicide. but, to hold these people, they mostly need to run a clean government. that's fighting against gravity.
most of the rest of the swing is traditional liberal support, which is actually still running a little low - the ndp managed to hold about a third of it. they're going to want to see the liberals avoid getting too mixed up in foreign conflicts, which could be somewhat of a weak spot. the tpp is a wildcard. the environment is a growing dominant concern amongst younger voters. but, the point is that this support is mostly policy driven, and something they consequently have far more control over. the ontario liberals have - up until recently - done a good job in holding this support by actually putting through good policy positions. if the liberals actually do this, they could even eat further into ndp support as the holdout liberals slowly give in.
it remains to be seen whether or not they can hold their support in quebec, but i think it is largely out of their hands. the bloc need to make some big decisions.
a disaster scenario will occur if the liberals misinterpret the situation and start pandering to red tories. what the red tories base their voting decisions on is broadly unattainable: every government has corruption in it, but they keep switching sides naively hoping it will reduce corruption. it's the definition of insanity. but, it's been happening for a long time and will keep happening. the pandering will get them nowhere, but will piss off the base they won back. we'll be thrown back to the situation we were in in 2011.
part of the reason i endorsed the liberals is that i was convinced they've come to understand that. but, we'll see if they do or not.
if they act like liberals, and keep acting like liberals, the younger trudeau could be in power for longer than his father - as the conservatives spin-out trying to please their base, and the ndp have difficulty articulating why they'd be better.
if they act like conservatives, expect the government to be short-lived.
the liberals won by doing three things:
1) getting back a good proportion of their base from the ndp, which had been wandering left since 2004.
2) cementing the red tory vote.
3) taking advantage of apathy towards sovereignty in quebec.
but, they peaked at the right time and got a lot of pragmatic support. you could call it a perfect storm, or a perfect planetary alignment. expect polls next month to wander dramatically.
the conservatives are the easiest to understand because they have the strongest base. the conservative base is around 27-30%, but sometimes seems a little higher due to low turnout. there's an additional swing of about 6-8% that they can access under ideal circumstances. this separation became clear in 2004, when joe clark endorsed paul martin and actually swung about that much from the new conservatives to the liberals. you can call this the "clark swing", but the traditional term for this is "red tories". what is useful about the 2004 election is that it provided a direct measurement of how many red tories there are out there.
the fact that the conservatives ran about 30% (a touch higher due to moderately low turnout, albeit higher than the last few elections) indicates that the liberals got almost all of that red tory support.
but, the reality that the conservatives were flatlined at 30 the whole time indicates that the red tories seem to have decided on the liberals a good way out from the election. dominant factors were likely related to corruption - duffy and things of the sort.
the liberals can hold these votes for long periods, but they are moderate conservatives at their core and will bolt back at the first opportunity. they would prefer to vote conservative, unless the option seems too extreme. i expect the conservatives to elect jason kenney, who has a bad reputation amongst these voters and could keep them voting liberal for quite a while. but, if they pick a more moderate option then this support will flow back. further, they will react badly to certain social issues. they're going to lean towards the liberals on a lot of social issues, including multiculturalism, abortion, the death penalty and marijuana legalization. but, an underlooked factor in their swing back to the conservatives in 2006, in addition to the sponsorship scandal, was probably the gay marriage ruling and the martin government's acceptance of it. if the media finds some kind of a scandal, at least a part of it could swing back pretty quick. and, they may have some reservations about assisted suicide. but, to hold these people, they mostly need to run a clean government. that's fighting against gravity.
most of the rest of the swing is traditional liberal support, which is actually still running a little low - the ndp managed to hold about a third of it. they're going to want to see the liberals avoid getting too mixed up in foreign conflicts, which could be somewhat of a weak spot. the tpp is a wildcard. the environment is a growing dominant concern amongst younger voters. but, the point is that this support is mostly policy driven, and something they consequently have far more control over. the ontario liberals have - up until recently - done a good job in holding this support by actually putting through good policy positions. if the liberals actually do this, they could even eat further into ndp support as the holdout liberals slowly give in.
it remains to be seen whether or not they can hold their support in quebec, but i think it is largely out of their hands. the bloc need to make some big decisions.
a disaster scenario will occur if the liberals misinterpret the situation and start pandering to red tories. what the red tories base their voting decisions on is broadly unattainable: every government has corruption in it, but they keep switching sides naively hoping it will reduce corruption. it's the definition of insanity. but, it's been happening for a long time and will keep happening. the pandering will get them nowhere, but will piss off the base they won back. we'll be thrown back to the situation we were in in 2011.
part of the reason i endorsed the liberals is that i was convinced they've come to understand that. but, we'll see if they do or not.
if they act like liberals, and keep acting like liberals, the younger trudeau could be in power for longer than his father - as the conservatives spin-out trying to please their base, and the ndp have difficulty articulating why they'd be better.
if they act like conservatives, expect the government to be short-lived.
wow. snl has really lost it's edge. twenty years ago.
this doesn't even pretend to be insightful satire. it's half an attempt to explain the candidates to a disinterested audience, and half a collection of surface-deep caricatures that could apply to more or less anybody.
there's a lot to play with here. and, there's actually quite a bit of competition out there. i know that snl is basically catering to a prime time network tv sitcom audience nowadays, but it's hard to believe that the lowest common denominator is so small.
this doesn't even pretend to be insightful satire. it's half an attempt to explain the candidates to a disinterested audience, and half a collection of surface-deep caricatures that could apply to more or less anybody.
there's a lot to play with here. and, there's actually quite a bit of competition out there. i know that snl is basically catering to a prime time network tv sitcom audience nowadays, but it's hard to believe that the lowest common denominator is so small.
bernie has been transparent that his primary aim is to try and alter the narrative, and that is working. and, his answer on the socialism issue - which is basically that most americans don't understand what socialism is, and would support it if they did - is correct in the abstract. there's tons of polling on this. if you ask americans about socialism, they reject it. but, if you ask them about socialist policies, they support them. it's a sad state of affairs, but it has been true for a very long time [it's something chomsky was fond of pointing out at least as far back as the 80s].
but, anderson cooper is bringing up a valid point. you get this 45/45 split in american politics that is partisan and doesn't move. you're stuck winning elections with the remaining "independents", who are also generally the least informed members of the public. the two party system has created this reality where big money gets to define narratives and win elections because it's the only way that the swing vote interacts with issues. it's just a very narrow battlefield, and because it's so narrow, it's so easy to control. sanders is an easy target.
could he increase turnout and overpower it? this is the correct answer: it's not the least risky choice for the democratic party.
it's a harder road to walk down, but the country would be better off in the long run if people like sanders were helping to build a third party, although that should be happening at the congressional level rather than the presidential level. i mean, it's what he's done. he has a base to work with. a model. a long, hard road - but one that could be emulated. that said, and because the important shift needs to be happening congressionally, i do think that it's important that he's there and getting people to think of things from a different perspective.
but, at the end of the day, the spectrum he's trying to work within out of pragmatism is going to kill him off out of pragmatism.
i'm still waiting for the banks to put their candidate down. i thought it was sanders, which would be outrageous, but it's just not adding up. it's not hillary. they hate hillary. they ran obama against her, they will run somebody else against her. it looked like it was going to be fiorina, but that seemed like an attempt to neutralize the female vote that has collapsed with the uncertainty of her winning the primary; it may come back if she takes a wider lead. when it's obvious, it will become obvious.
for that reason, democrats should be questioning their logic. clinton has done everything she can to position herself as the establishment, and the establishment has rejected her. if you allow her to win the primary, the banks will ensure she loses the general.
if i was an american, i'd certainly be leaning towards bernie. but, i really don't see a candidate here that the media will allow to win.
biden is probably the party's best chance. but, the party might not like what he gets you, either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr1KJR5UZjM
also: bernie needs to stop referring to himself in the third person, before somebody picks up on it and starts doing a reprise of the comedy routine that turned bob dole into a joke.
that's fertile ground.
but, anderson cooper is bringing up a valid point. you get this 45/45 split in american politics that is partisan and doesn't move. you're stuck winning elections with the remaining "independents", who are also generally the least informed members of the public. the two party system has created this reality where big money gets to define narratives and win elections because it's the only way that the swing vote interacts with issues. it's just a very narrow battlefield, and because it's so narrow, it's so easy to control. sanders is an easy target.
could he increase turnout and overpower it? this is the correct answer: it's not the least risky choice for the democratic party.
it's a harder road to walk down, but the country would be better off in the long run if people like sanders were helping to build a third party, although that should be happening at the congressional level rather than the presidential level. i mean, it's what he's done. he has a base to work with. a model. a long, hard road - but one that could be emulated. that said, and because the important shift needs to be happening congressionally, i do think that it's important that he's there and getting people to think of things from a different perspective.
but, at the end of the day, the spectrum he's trying to work within out of pragmatism is going to kill him off out of pragmatism.
i'm still waiting for the banks to put their candidate down. i thought it was sanders, which would be outrageous, but it's just not adding up. it's not hillary. they hate hillary. they ran obama against her, they will run somebody else against her. it looked like it was going to be fiorina, but that seemed like an attempt to neutralize the female vote that has collapsed with the uncertainty of her winning the primary; it may come back if she takes a wider lead. when it's obvious, it will become obvious.
for that reason, democrats should be questioning their logic. clinton has done everything she can to position herself as the establishment, and the establishment has rejected her. if you allow her to win the primary, the banks will ensure she loses the general.
if i was an american, i'd certainly be leaning towards bernie. but, i really don't see a candidate here that the media will allow to win.
biden is probably the party's best chance. but, the party might not like what he gets you, either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr1KJR5UZjM
also: bernie needs to stop referring to himself in the third person, before somebody picks up on it and starts doing a reprise of the comedy routine that turned bob dole into a joke.
that's fertile ground.
Monday, October 19, 2015
so, why am i doing this? what are my motives? what are my goals?
the cynical assumption is no doubt that i'm looking to cash a check, but in fact i live very happily on disability and have no real incentives to generate income. i mean, i'm not going to turn it down if it comes. and, sure, i'll pay a little bit back. but i'm simply not desperately trying to charm myself out of wage slavery, because i'm actually not in it. i made a decision several years ago that i would not live under the goal of profit maximization; i've held to it fairly well to this point and i don't plan on reversing myself on it.
that's maybe something to grasp about me, overall: i need real motives, not just monetary ones. it's the dour existentialist in me that sees the society around me as disparagingly absurd. i just don't find capitalism motivational; this is the real reason that i have not been able to survive without state aid - i become hopelessly depressed and unable to function when forced to work to exist. i mean, look at how much writing i do for free. i'm rambling with an aim. i need that. methods to madness and whatnot. i don't even mirror with an ad space; and while i do plan to mirror, i don't plan to put ads up. call me a fool if you'd like, but understand that the feeling is mutual.
that said, i do plan to monetize these videos and that is a definite difference. i have not and will not monetize any of my music videos. i'm comfortable with monetizing this, so why not? but it's not a motive, so much as it's just possible gravy. i'm happy as i am, but could think of plenty of activist things to do with a larger stream of income.
the primary reason i'm doing this is to act as a gateway to the music. when i first put up my other youtube channel, i had no real expectations for it. but, i learned quickly that the commenting system could act as an effective means of promotion so long as i was consistently being interesting or provocative - which are things that i'm naturally good at. i found my hits growing relatively quickly, and on a fairly steep curve, as a consequence of posting insightful, witty and/or challenging comments on other people's videos - or, from time to time, just being a good troll.
over the last few months, youtube has taken steps to hurt "spammers". was i spammer? well, it depends. i was certainly advertising, but it was through the stealth approach of posing interesting questions rather than the obvious approach of pushing links in your face. i might suggest we're all better off for that and it's a kind of fair game type of spamming. but, purposefully or collaterally, i was caught up in the anti-spam shifts and have seen hits come down dramatically. as i understand that this is systemic, i realize i need to take further steps.
now, a vlog can only act as a frontend for something else if it is actually interesting, and can actually hold an audience, and the fact that i think i can do this is a big part of the point. on the one hand: merely look at my comments. look at the arguments, debates, discussions. i'm obviously able to generate interest. it's more than that.
i think the primary reason i'm of interest is that i can offer a worldview into a "real life" transgendered person. by that, what i mean is a lower class transgendered person that neither lives a celebrity lifestyle nor has had any plastic surgery. the media is complicit in this perpetual, brutal stereotyping of transwomen as these passive little barbified bimbos that spend their whole lives fantasizing about becoming porn stars. i don't wear fishnets. i don't have a boob job. i don't talk like rupaul. i'm really rather shockingly normal. i think that this kind of realness is what is missing from the conversation, because so many of us are so shy and so unwilling to draw attention to it. i can walk into this space fairly freely; i openly identify as specifically trans and will actually correct you if you suggest or imply otherwise. i have no social aspirations in either gender for this kind of open discussion to interfere with. hopefully, by presenting the perspective of a "normal" trans person, i can help break down stereotypes of the shallow, materialistic porn star or model wannabe transfemale. did you know that transgendered people are actually statistically of greater likelihood to be of above average intelligence? it's a condition that is actually correlated very strongly with bookishness, aloof intellectualism and sometimes crippling levels of introversion. very few of us want to be porn stars. most of us would prefer to spend a saturday night in the library than at the club.
the second reason is that i often find myself walking over long distances and mentally putting aside thoughts to write down somewhere later. as i spend a lot of time walking, i spend a lot of time thinking. i think some of these thoughts are worth sharing. this goes back to the same political motives i have in ranting everywhere. i suppose this is more of the traditional vlog, right: the webcam in the bedroom. but, i won't do that. if i'm at home, i'd actually prefer to write it down - i think more fluidly when i'm typing. rather, a substantial part of this blog is going to be me talking into the camera as i'm walking around in the wee hours of the morning, ejecting scattered thoughts and various insights.
that brings up another point: i'm a single person. this is by choice, by desire and without any reservations. i couldn't imagine not being single. but, what that means is that this is an exercise in introversion, rather than a display of social behaviour. as an outlet, that might be healthy, for me.
i also think it will be good for me to need to have a greater incentive to focus on how i present myself. as i'm single, and live on disability, i can go through rather long periods of personal neglect. if i need to be on screen every day, or every other day, that is going to make a big difference in how i treat myself, which will have consequences in terms of self-esteem. i think this will be good for me.
so, these are the social and personal goals i have in running a vlog. they may not always be obvious, as you're following me to a concert or watching me make lunch. but, i hope that i'm able to use this vlog both to build awareness and to help myself deal with various issues - as well as to draw attention to myself as a working artist.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/108929126523080872678/108929126523080872678/posts/fHiPrp3Rwd8
the cynical assumption is no doubt that i'm looking to cash a check, but in fact i live very happily on disability and have no real incentives to generate income. i mean, i'm not going to turn it down if it comes. and, sure, i'll pay a little bit back. but i'm simply not desperately trying to charm myself out of wage slavery, because i'm actually not in it. i made a decision several years ago that i would not live under the goal of profit maximization; i've held to it fairly well to this point and i don't plan on reversing myself on it.
that's maybe something to grasp about me, overall: i need real motives, not just monetary ones. it's the dour existentialist in me that sees the society around me as disparagingly absurd. i just don't find capitalism motivational; this is the real reason that i have not been able to survive without state aid - i become hopelessly depressed and unable to function when forced to work to exist. i mean, look at how much writing i do for free. i'm rambling with an aim. i need that. methods to madness and whatnot. i don't even mirror with an ad space; and while i do plan to mirror, i don't plan to put ads up. call me a fool if you'd like, but understand that the feeling is mutual.
that said, i do plan to monetize these videos and that is a definite difference. i have not and will not monetize any of my music videos. i'm comfortable with monetizing this, so why not? but it's not a motive, so much as it's just possible gravy. i'm happy as i am, but could think of plenty of activist things to do with a larger stream of income.
the primary reason i'm doing this is to act as a gateway to the music. when i first put up my other youtube channel, i had no real expectations for it. but, i learned quickly that the commenting system could act as an effective means of promotion so long as i was consistently being interesting or provocative - which are things that i'm naturally good at. i found my hits growing relatively quickly, and on a fairly steep curve, as a consequence of posting insightful, witty and/or challenging comments on other people's videos - or, from time to time, just being a good troll.
over the last few months, youtube has taken steps to hurt "spammers". was i spammer? well, it depends. i was certainly advertising, but it was through the stealth approach of posing interesting questions rather than the obvious approach of pushing links in your face. i might suggest we're all better off for that and it's a kind of fair game type of spamming. but, purposefully or collaterally, i was caught up in the anti-spam shifts and have seen hits come down dramatically. as i understand that this is systemic, i realize i need to take further steps.
now, a vlog can only act as a frontend for something else if it is actually interesting, and can actually hold an audience, and the fact that i think i can do this is a big part of the point. on the one hand: merely look at my comments. look at the arguments, debates, discussions. i'm obviously able to generate interest. it's more than that.
i think the primary reason i'm of interest is that i can offer a worldview into a "real life" transgendered person. by that, what i mean is a lower class transgendered person that neither lives a celebrity lifestyle nor has had any plastic surgery. the media is complicit in this perpetual, brutal stereotyping of transwomen as these passive little barbified bimbos that spend their whole lives fantasizing about becoming porn stars. i don't wear fishnets. i don't have a boob job. i don't talk like rupaul. i'm really rather shockingly normal. i think that this kind of realness is what is missing from the conversation, because so many of us are so shy and so unwilling to draw attention to it. i can walk into this space fairly freely; i openly identify as specifically trans and will actually correct you if you suggest or imply otherwise. i have no social aspirations in either gender for this kind of open discussion to interfere with. hopefully, by presenting the perspective of a "normal" trans person, i can help break down stereotypes of the shallow, materialistic porn star or model wannabe transfemale. did you know that transgendered people are actually statistically of greater likelihood to be of above average intelligence? it's a condition that is actually correlated very strongly with bookishness, aloof intellectualism and sometimes crippling levels of introversion. very few of us want to be porn stars. most of us would prefer to spend a saturday night in the library than at the club.
the second reason is that i often find myself walking over long distances and mentally putting aside thoughts to write down somewhere later. as i spend a lot of time walking, i spend a lot of time thinking. i think some of these thoughts are worth sharing. this goes back to the same political motives i have in ranting everywhere. i suppose this is more of the traditional vlog, right: the webcam in the bedroom. but, i won't do that. if i'm at home, i'd actually prefer to write it down - i think more fluidly when i'm typing. rather, a substantial part of this blog is going to be me talking into the camera as i'm walking around in the wee hours of the morning, ejecting scattered thoughts and various insights.
that brings up another point: i'm a single person. this is by choice, by desire and without any reservations. i couldn't imagine not being single. but, what that means is that this is an exercise in introversion, rather than a display of social behaviour. as an outlet, that might be healthy, for me.
i also think it will be good for me to need to have a greater incentive to focus on how i present myself. as i'm single, and live on disability, i can go through rather long periods of personal neglect. if i need to be on screen every day, or every other day, that is going to make a big difference in how i treat myself, which will have consequences in terms of self-esteem. i think this will be good for me.
so, these are the social and personal goals i have in running a vlog. they may not always be obvious, as you're following me to a concert or watching me make lunch. but, i hope that i'm able to use this vlog both to build awareness and to help myself deal with various issues - as well as to draw attention to myself as a working artist.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/108929126523080872678/108929126523080872678/posts/fHiPrp3Rwd8
well, i was by far the closest of any of the predictions i've seen. what i got wrong was that the split in quebec helped the liberals in places nobody would have expected them to win. but, the bloc vote is still coming in, and it could still get a bit closer.
but i figured it would be a seat or two short of a majority, and it does seem like they managed one, even if it does get a little closer to where i was predicting.
i'll need to look at specific data more specifically in the morning, but it's actually aligned almost exactly to my predictions, except that swing in quebec.
nobody got quebec right. everybody else suggested the ndp holding 35-40 seats. give me credit for realizing that that didn't make sense, but i seem to have jumped on a last-minute bloc bump that was really just statistical noise [although it was present in the data, it's always a coin flip whether you're picking up a bump or not over the last 36 hours - it's equally likely to be noise, and appears to have been this time].
the liberals seem to have picked up around 35% of the vote in quebec. nobody had them that high.
so, i can make a tentative guess as to what went wrong. i suggested that an ndp--->liberal swing would not be enough for the liberals to win rural quebec, and that the bloc would come up the middle. this would have been a decent guess if the numbers would have stabilized at libs 30, ndp 25, bloc 25.
what happened, instead, was that the swing to the liberals was larger than any pollster picked up. we ended up with libs 35, ndp 25, bloc 20. that meant the swing was actually enough for the liberals to win, after all.
i got everything else dead on, almost.
i suggested the conservatives would be around 100.
i suggested the ndp would be around 45.
but, i suggested the bloc would be around 35 (they got 10) and that the liberals would be around 160 (they got 185).
i did far better than the official pollsters, and by citing precedent and using logic rather than using modelling (which i was certainly right in suggesting was inapplicable to this election). but, you have to understand that quebec was impossible to predict. it wasn't even sure what order the parties were in. and, with margins of error over 5%, you couldn't really peg them better than an unordered 10 point spread - which meant you were literally left making a guess.
that said: if there were some numbers putting the liberals higher than 30, consistently, i think i would have seen this coming. and, i suspect we'll find out that turnout in quebec was low, which propped the numbers up a bit. i did see that coming at some point, but i didn't factor it in. and, even so, i would have had a hard time suggesting liberals could win in a lot of the seats they did.
so, i got most of it dead on. quebec was completely unpredictable; i broke with the conventional wisdom, but what actually happened was even more unlikely than my break with the conventional thinking. although, i think we'll find out in the end that turnout was very low, and it's really what caused these unexpectedly high liberal numbers there.
but i figured it would be a seat or two short of a majority, and it does seem like they managed one, even if it does get a little closer to where i was predicting.
i'll need to look at specific data more specifically in the morning, but it's actually aligned almost exactly to my predictions, except that swing in quebec.
nobody got quebec right. everybody else suggested the ndp holding 35-40 seats. give me credit for realizing that that didn't make sense, but i seem to have jumped on a last-minute bloc bump that was really just statistical noise [although it was present in the data, it's always a coin flip whether you're picking up a bump or not over the last 36 hours - it's equally likely to be noise, and appears to have been this time].
the liberals seem to have picked up around 35% of the vote in quebec. nobody had them that high.
so, i can make a tentative guess as to what went wrong. i suggested that an ndp--->liberal swing would not be enough for the liberals to win rural quebec, and that the bloc would come up the middle. this would have been a decent guess if the numbers would have stabilized at libs 30, ndp 25, bloc 25.
what happened, instead, was that the swing to the liberals was larger than any pollster picked up. we ended up with libs 35, ndp 25, bloc 20. that meant the swing was actually enough for the liberals to win, after all.
i got everything else dead on, almost.
i suggested the conservatives would be around 100.
i suggested the ndp would be around 45.
but, i suggested the bloc would be around 35 (they got 10) and that the liberals would be around 160 (they got 185).
i did far better than the official pollsters, and by citing precedent and using logic rather than using modelling (which i was certainly right in suggesting was inapplicable to this election). but, you have to understand that quebec was impossible to predict. it wasn't even sure what order the parties were in. and, with margins of error over 5%, you couldn't really peg them better than an unordered 10 point spread - which meant you were literally left making a guess.
that said: if there were some numbers putting the liberals higher than 30, consistently, i think i would have seen this coming. and, i suspect we'll find out that turnout in quebec was low, which propped the numbers up a bit. i did see that coming at some point, but i didn't factor it in. and, even so, i would have had a hard time suggesting liberals could win in a lot of the seats they did.
so, i got most of it dead on. quebec was completely unpredictable; i broke with the conventional wisdom, but what actually happened was even more unlikely than my break with the conventional thinking. although, i think we'll find out in the end that turnout was very low, and it's really what caused these unexpectedly high liberal numbers there.
i've posted this a few places. here's my prediction.
liberals: 160+, but a minority. the major movement is ontario, where they get 90+ seats. i'm basing this on the feeling that the results will be similar to the 2004 federal election, and then giving the liberals basically every seat created by redistribution.
conservatives: -100. just under - 97, 98, somewhere around there. -25 in ontario. losses in calgary. reduced almost entirely to rural seats.
ndp: ~45. i think they only win around ~15 seats in quebec. traditional seats in bc & ontario. a few new seats in saskatchewan and edmonton.
bloc: ~35. the way i see this working is that as the ndp support swings to the liberals, it opens up the bloc in many, many seats. there is evidence of some last minute movement towards them. i should point out that i'm ballparking them around 25% in quebec and the ndp at just about that, as well. there may be some last minute strategic movement to the bloc around quebec city, too.
greens: 1.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/18/election-2015-seat-projections-liberals-trudeau_n_8325024.html
liberals: 160+, but a minority. the major movement is ontario, where they get 90+ seats. i'm basing this on the feeling that the results will be similar to the 2004 federal election, and then giving the liberals basically every seat created by redistribution.
conservatives: -100. just under - 97, 98, somewhere around there. -25 in ontario. losses in calgary. reduced almost entirely to rural seats.
ndp: ~45. i think they only win around ~15 seats in quebec. traditional seats in bc & ontario. a few new seats in saskatchewan and edmonton.
bloc: ~35. the way i see this working is that as the ndp support swings to the liberals, it opens up the bloc in many, many seats. there is evidence of some last minute movement towards them. i should point out that i'm ballparking them around 25% in quebec and the ndp at just about that, as well. there may be some last minute strategic movement to the bloc around quebec city, too.
greens: 1.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/18/election-2015-seat-projections-liberals-trudeau_n_8325024.html
Sunday, October 18, 2015
can you at least decriminalize in the first few days so we can celebrate freely?
yeah, yeah. i know why it's not in the speech. and he's pointed out he'll move quickly before. still...
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/canada-election-2015-justin-trudeau-100-days-1.3276219
yeah, yeah. i know why it's not in the speech. and he's pointed out he'll move quickly before. still...
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/canada-election-2015-justin-trudeau-100-days-1.3276219
“Why are Liberals higher with a live interviewer than with the robot?”
you really gotta figure that out. i’ve provided some ideas. but, you really need to work that through.
i just want to add that the comments i’ve posted are not meant to be generalized. the dynamics of this specific election – where 2/3rds of the population sees the two opposition parties as interchangeable – is not likely to repeat itself.
but i would also point out that you were lowballing the ndp when they were ahead, too.
whatever explanation you get should have to explain both of these things. mine can do that.
www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/deadlock-broken-liberals-surging/#comment-60049
Jeremy
It is interesting. I have heard some say the “shy Conservatives” are more likely to hang up the phone (based on UK studies). Without declaring my own support – I know I hang up the phone anytime I hear a robo-dialler without waiting to here what it is about.
deathtokoalas
the thing with biases like this is that they’re constantly shifting, constantly cancelled out, constantly complicated…
i’ve posted here a few times. i think he’s picking up a “dithering progressive” reaction over ivr, where liberal-ndp swing voters are having a harder time committing to a machine, but are reflecting social bias on the phone.
you can transfer the mainstreet results down from 38/33 (decided only) to 34/30 (including undecideds). it’s harder to do that with ekos’ data because he’s mixing sample, which i think is really the core of the inconsistencies. but, i would suspect that those results would scale down consistently – at least with the conservative vote.
he may actually simply be correctly picking up that the polls putting the liberals over 35, and heading to 40, are picking up a lot of very soft liberal support – people that would tell a live interviewer they’re voting liberal, and legitimately will probably vote liberal if they vote at all, but are, in their heart, truly conflicted.
if a polling company is meant to predict results, it’s a crappy result. if it’s meant to understand what people are actually thinking, there’s perhaps some usefulness in what he’s picking up.
ways to know frank was picking something up:
1) an unexpected last minute low turnout leads to a higher conservative outcome. this may happen if the ditherers can’t pull the trigger and stay home.
2) there’s an unexpected surge in ndp support. i know he’s not picking that up. but he seems to be picking up huge amounts of indecisiveness (that maybe broke at the last minute).
caveat: i’m interpreting these results in ways the pollster has not, and likely would not (yet) endorse. but, i’m mildly worried about (1), if not particularly worried about (2).
Raunch
Yeah……the polls for the National Post (Postmedia), Global News, and the Globe and Mail (who all have the Libs in front) are trying to support the Libs? Seriously?
3 weeks ago, when Nanos, Ekos, Angus Reid, etc. were showing the Cons taking a lead over the other two parties, the Con-friendly commentors on here thought these polls were legit.
Now, because these polls show different results than what you want to see….you think they are garbage. Well, good luck with your way of thinking. Seems a little hypocritical, don’t you think?
deathtokoalas
i’ve been wondering for a while if there might be a kind of scare tactic at play, to rev up the base.
but, at the least, you don’t expect nik to play around with this. he nails elections. you can do just about anything you want with an online panel at this point, then blame it on untested technology. but, nik has a reputation, and if he’s putting those numbers out, it’s because he believes in them.
--
that liberal swing in quebec is going to elect bloc mps.
i’m plugging in:
libs: 160+, but not 170. 90+ seats in ontario.
cons: ~100, probably a seat or two less. -25 seats in ontario.
ndp: ~45. only ~15 seats in quebec.
bloc: ~35, by coming up the middle on the ndp–>liberal shift. i also think that they get a last minute boost around quebec city to stop the conservatives there.
you really gotta figure that out. i’ve provided some ideas. but, you really need to work that through.
i just want to add that the comments i’ve posted are not meant to be generalized. the dynamics of this specific election – where 2/3rds of the population sees the two opposition parties as interchangeable – is not likely to repeat itself.
but i would also point out that you were lowballing the ndp when they were ahead, too.
whatever explanation you get should have to explain both of these things. mine can do that.
www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/deadlock-broken-liberals-surging/#comment-60049
Jeremy
It is interesting. I have heard some say the “shy Conservatives” are more likely to hang up the phone (based on UK studies). Without declaring my own support – I know I hang up the phone anytime I hear a robo-dialler without waiting to here what it is about.
deathtokoalas
the thing with biases like this is that they’re constantly shifting, constantly cancelled out, constantly complicated…
i’ve posted here a few times. i think he’s picking up a “dithering progressive” reaction over ivr, where liberal-ndp swing voters are having a harder time committing to a machine, but are reflecting social bias on the phone.
you can transfer the mainstreet results down from 38/33 (decided only) to 34/30 (including undecideds). it’s harder to do that with ekos’ data because he’s mixing sample, which i think is really the core of the inconsistencies. but, i would suspect that those results would scale down consistently – at least with the conservative vote.
he may actually simply be correctly picking up that the polls putting the liberals over 35, and heading to 40, are picking up a lot of very soft liberal support – people that would tell a live interviewer they’re voting liberal, and legitimately will probably vote liberal if they vote at all, but are, in their heart, truly conflicted.
if a polling company is meant to predict results, it’s a crappy result. if it’s meant to understand what people are actually thinking, there’s perhaps some usefulness in what he’s picking up.
ways to know frank was picking something up:
1) an unexpected last minute low turnout leads to a higher conservative outcome. this may happen if the ditherers can’t pull the trigger and stay home.
2) there’s an unexpected surge in ndp support. i know he’s not picking that up. but he seems to be picking up huge amounts of indecisiveness (that maybe broke at the last minute).
caveat: i’m interpreting these results in ways the pollster has not, and likely would not (yet) endorse. but, i’m mildly worried about (1), if not particularly worried about (2).
Raunch
Yeah……the polls for the National Post (Postmedia), Global News, and the Globe and Mail (who all have the Libs in front) are trying to support the Libs? Seriously?
3 weeks ago, when Nanos, Ekos, Angus Reid, etc. were showing the Cons taking a lead over the other two parties, the Con-friendly commentors on here thought these polls were legit.
Now, because these polls show different results than what you want to see….you think they are garbage. Well, good luck with your way of thinking. Seems a little hypocritical, don’t you think?
deathtokoalas
i’ve been wondering for a while if there might be a kind of scare tactic at play, to rev up the base.
but, at the least, you don’t expect nik to play around with this. he nails elections. you can do just about anything you want with an online panel at this point, then blame it on untested technology. but, nik has a reputation, and if he’s putting those numbers out, it’s because he believes in them.
--
that liberal swing in quebec is going to elect bloc mps.
i’m plugging in:
libs: 160+, but not 170. 90+ seats in ontario.
cons: ~100, probably a seat or two less. -25 seats in ontario.
ndp: ~45. only ~15 seats in quebec.
bloc: ~35, by coming up the middle on the ndp–>liberal shift. i also think that they get a last minute boost around quebec city to stop the conservatives there.
i’d say you’ve got a last minute bloc surge, there. forum is picking it up as well. nanos has….let’s call it a bump rather than a surge. i would agree with anybody suggesting that you can’t honestly separate it from possible sampling error, but the thing is that i think this makes sense. with the ndp down a large chunk as it is, a lot of what’s left are going to be scrambling to find ways to make sure neither the conservatives nor the liberals (who are nearly equally despised in much of quebec) can win in their riding. with those numbers, i think it’s clear that the bloc win a lot of seats.
i don’t think a late swing to the conservatives in bc is unbelievable, either. but nobody else is picking it up yet. and, you have to ask “where?”, too, and “from who?”. i’m skeptical about a swing in the lower mainland. rather. what i’m willing to believe here is maybe counter-intuitive. outside of the lower mainland, the haunting sceptre of a liberal minority, even, could be enough to firm up traditional conservatives that were leaning ndp on the perception they had a chance of forming government. most of bc is going to vote on a populist/elitist axis, which makes the liberals broadly uncompetitive. it’s the one place in the country where you’ll get ndp voters voting strategically for the conservatives, just because the spectrum is completely different. nanos *does* have the ndp down and the conservatives up a bit relative to last week, but it’s the same thing with sampling and margins. i’m not overwhelmingly skeptical, anyways. it was maybe hard to believe they were down 15-20 points.
it’s clearly the uncertainty in bc and quebec that are warping your numbers. i’m still leaning towards it being a consequence, or artefact, of the method. but these have been trouble points for pollsters recently, too. really: you’re not telling me anything absurd, right now. i’m just left with same concerns regarding the question of what are truly reasonable sampling frames.
--
i’ve been posting photos of the 2014 ontario election for comparison, but the numbers have stabilized higher than that – closer to the 2004 federal election.
this is a very different map than the models are producing, but i suspect it will be closer to the final outcome.
i don’t think a late swing to the conservatives in bc is unbelievable, either. but nobody else is picking it up yet. and, you have to ask “where?”, too, and “from who?”. i’m skeptical about a swing in the lower mainland. rather. what i’m willing to believe here is maybe counter-intuitive. outside of the lower mainland, the haunting sceptre of a liberal minority, even, could be enough to firm up traditional conservatives that were leaning ndp on the perception they had a chance of forming government. most of bc is going to vote on a populist/elitist axis, which makes the liberals broadly uncompetitive. it’s the one place in the country where you’ll get ndp voters voting strategically for the conservatives, just because the spectrum is completely different. nanos *does* have the ndp down and the conservatives up a bit relative to last week, but it’s the same thing with sampling and margins. i’m not overwhelmingly skeptical, anyways. it was maybe hard to believe they were down 15-20 points.
it’s clearly the uncertainty in bc and quebec that are warping your numbers. i’m still leaning towards it being a consequence, or artefact, of the method. but these have been trouble points for pollsters recently, too. really: you’re not telling me anything absurd, right now. i’m just left with same concerns regarding the question of what are truly reasonable sampling frames.
--
i’ve been posting photos of the 2014 ontario election for comparison, but the numbers have stabilized higher than that – closer to the 2004 federal election.
this is a very different map than the models are producing, but i suspect it will be closer to the final outcome.
you know what i want, as a trans person? to no longer see trans people thought of as a voting block, or for there to be a section of supposed election concerns called "trans issues".
i vote on the same issues everybody else does, and resent being pandered to as an identity voter. my gender identity has no effect on my other perspectives. that human rights amendment would be great and everything, but it will make no functional difference in the actual real world.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/18/transgender-issues-canada-election_n_8323144.html
i vote on the same issues everybody else does, and resent being pandered to as an identity voter. my gender identity has no effect on my other perspectives. that human rights amendment would be great and everything, but it will make no functional difference in the actual real world.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/18/transgender-issues-canada-election_n_8323144.html
i complain about the models. so, what's my prediction?
....here's my election prediction.
liberals: 160+. probably not more than 170. they're going to try and get some people to floor cross. i think they're going to nearly sweep not just the gta but all of ontario, including coming very close and winning in seats nobody would normally give them a chance in. the numbers look similar to 2004, which would give them around 90/121 seats - and reduce the conservatives to less than 25 seats in ontario. find the 2004 map on wiki for an idea as to what it will look like in ontario. they'll also do well in the east, in montreal, in gatineau, in winnipeg, in calgary (expect big upsets here) and in vancouver. but note that they will have essentially no rural representation, outside of the maritimes and probably ontario.
conservatives: ~100. it's going to be basically all rural seats. but, they're going to get hurt in ontario and it may actually take them under 100, a little.
ndp: ~45. they'll do slightly better in quebec and bc, but they're going to be shut out out of a lot of provinces and be down to a handful in the rest of them. mulcair will lose his seat, which will mean they'll be pushovers for a while.
bloc: ~35. so, what has actually happened in quebec? as usual, begin by ignoring the media. the conservatives show no statistically meaningful growth, and the bloc haven't up to now either - although they may be surging a little the last few days. it won't matter much, at this point, unless the ndp vote completely collapses, which seems unlikely; it'd already have happened by now. but, there has been a large and clear and measurable movement from the ndp to the liberals. that is what has happened in quebec. obviously, that helps the liberals where they are competitive. but, it does not help them where they are not, which is most of quebec. rather, what happens is that, as the ndp vote fades away to the liberals, the bloc (which finished second in 2011 almost everywhere) move into a dominant position almost everywhere outside of montreal (where the liberals become dominant) and quebec (where the conservatives do). and, the more the province becomes aware of this advantage for the conservatives, the more they vote for the bloc for strategic reasons.
green: 1.
....here's my election prediction.
liberals: 160+. probably not more than 170. they're going to try and get some people to floor cross. i think they're going to nearly sweep not just the gta but all of ontario, including coming very close and winning in seats nobody would normally give them a chance in. the numbers look similar to 2004, which would give them around 90/121 seats - and reduce the conservatives to less than 25 seats in ontario. find the 2004 map on wiki for an idea as to what it will look like in ontario. they'll also do well in the east, in montreal, in gatineau, in winnipeg, in calgary (expect big upsets here) and in vancouver. but note that they will have essentially no rural representation, outside of the maritimes and probably ontario.
conservatives: ~100. it's going to be basically all rural seats. but, they're going to get hurt in ontario and it may actually take them under 100, a little.
ndp: ~45. they'll do slightly better in quebec and bc, but they're going to be shut out out of a lot of provinces and be down to a handful in the rest of them. mulcair will lose his seat, which will mean they'll be pushovers for a while.
bloc: ~35. so, what has actually happened in quebec? as usual, begin by ignoring the media. the conservatives show no statistically meaningful growth, and the bloc haven't up to now either - although they may be surging a little the last few days. it won't matter much, at this point, unless the ndp vote completely collapses, which seems unlikely; it'd already have happened by now. but, there has been a large and clear and measurable movement from the ndp to the liberals. that is what has happened in quebec. obviously, that helps the liberals where they are competitive. but, it does not help them where they are not, which is most of quebec. rather, what happens is that, as the ndp vote fades away to the liberals, the bloc (which finished second in 2011 almost everywhere) move into a dominant position almost everywhere outside of montreal (where the liberals become dominant) and quebec (where the conservatives do). and, the more the province becomes aware of this advantage for the conservatives, the more they vote for the bloc for strategic reasons.
green: 1.
Saturday, October 17, 2015
i actually don't think it's the gta that's going to be key. the conservatives probably have a better shot of winning in brampton than they do in brantford, and that may actually be long term due to demographics. i'm not writing them off in brampton, i just think the numbers will be closer there at the end of the night than elsewhere.
i actually think it's going to be the 519, around the western edges of toronto. these are huge swings that your model can't pick up. mainstreet seems to have picked this up today, putting the conservatives in the 40s but competitive in toronto, suggesting the biggest swings are not in the gta but in southwestern ontario - and i have to presume he means the swath of territory that the wynne liberals managed to win in 2014 (and you can see on a map), rather than windsor or sarnia. this is the growing metropolitan area of guelph-waterloo-kitchener-cambridge-brantford. i dunno. call it west toronto or something. it's not normally considered the gta, but it maybe should start being thought of as a part of some kind of megacity centered on toronto. i hitch-hiked through there a few years ago, and it seemed to be me like i didn't really get out of the gta until i was heading towards london.
all data i can piece together seems like this is where the bulk of the swing actually is, and that it is a dramatic and (seemingly, though not really - it's just mirroring the last provincial election) unpredictable swing that you just can't pick up with what you're doing.
he also seemed to suggest the liberals were ahead in the north and the 613. but, that would be gravy - it would be the majority. it's those small cities west of toronto that win the liberals the election.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-gta-oct18-1.3276166
funstuf
oh you mean where the PC volunteers where illegally tearing down the NDP and Liberal signs?? lol NO chance, anyone with a brain is voting ABC in GTA, cons are good with the all rural areas where there are very few minorities, but GTA has a lot of seats and mostly going red, bye bye con crooks and liars!
jessica murray
i'm not suggesting that the conservatives will win in brampton. i'm just pointing out that they could very well poll close to 40 in a two-way race, and they probably won't get close to that in other places where the models put them comfortably ahead.
i'm a little concerned that there are some areas in toronto that are tuning out the rest of the country, and are maybe less voting against what's happening around them and more legitimately unaware of what is really happening around them. they may be reliant on local media in their own language that has very strong conservative biases, for cultural reasons. what that suggests is a large number of ideological voters that are practically impossible to convince, and simply don't swing.
it remains to be seen how the demographics balance themselves out. we've historically had urban policies that seek to prevent the local concentration of specific minorities at such large levels, and should maybe consider dusting some of those ideas off.
but, for now, it creates the potential of a stronger conservative base than exists elsewhere in urban ontario.
we'll find out on monday night.
in terms of numbers, what i'm getting at could be summed up by suggesting that the conservatives will likely do better in brampton than they do in the province, overall; if they get 31-33 province wide, as is suggested, you should expect higher than that in brampton - mid to high 30s.
i actually think it's going to be the 519, around the western edges of toronto. these are huge swings that your model can't pick up. mainstreet seems to have picked this up today, putting the conservatives in the 40s but competitive in toronto, suggesting the biggest swings are not in the gta but in southwestern ontario - and i have to presume he means the swath of territory that the wynne liberals managed to win in 2014 (and you can see on a map), rather than windsor or sarnia. this is the growing metropolitan area of guelph-waterloo-kitchener-cambridge-brantford. i dunno. call it west toronto or something. it's not normally considered the gta, but it maybe should start being thought of as a part of some kind of megacity centered on toronto. i hitch-hiked through there a few years ago, and it seemed to be me like i didn't really get out of the gta until i was heading towards london.
all data i can piece together seems like this is where the bulk of the swing actually is, and that it is a dramatic and (seemingly, though not really - it's just mirroring the last provincial election) unpredictable swing that you just can't pick up with what you're doing.
he also seemed to suggest the liberals were ahead in the north and the 613. but, that would be gravy - it would be the majority. it's those small cities west of toronto that win the liberals the election.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-gta-oct18-1.3276166
funstuf
oh you mean where the PC volunteers where illegally tearing down the NDP and Liberal signs?? lol NO chance, anyone with a brain is voting ABC in GTA, cons are good with the all rural areas where there are very few minorities, but GTA has a lot of seats and mostly going red, bye bye con crooks and liars!
jessica murray
i'm not suggesting that the conservatives will win in brampton. i'm just pointing out that they could very well poll close to 40 in a two-way race, and they probably won't get close to that in other places where the models put them comfortably ahead.
i'm a little concerned that there are some areas in toronto that are tuning out the rest of the country, and are maybe less voting against what's happening around them and more legitimately unaware of what is really happening around them. they may be reliant on local media in their own language that has very strong conservative biases, for cultural reasons. what that suggests is a large number of ideological voters that are practically impossible to convince, and simply don't swing.
it remains to be seen how the demographics balance themselves out. we've historically had urban policies that seek to prevent the local concentration of specific minorities at such large levels, and should maybe consider dusting some of those ideas off.
but, for now, it creates the potential of a stronger conservative base than exists elsewhere in urban ontario.
we'll find out on monday night.
in terms of numbers, what i'm getting at could be summed up by suggesting that the conservatives will likely do better in brampton than they do in the province, overall; if they get 31-33 province wide, as is suggested, you should expect higher than that in brampton - mid to high 30s.
these results are only different from the consensus in quebec and bc. in both cases, ekos is polling the conservatives much higher and the liberals much lower. it happens to be that these are also the places that have three or four way races.
passive consumers need to understand that pollsters don’t just collect opinions and send them out. they modify the results to fit the census, and there’s some interpretation in the process. that could be a part of the difference you’re seeing.
i’m also not sure that the blended sample is the best idea, because of the way that undecideds are being measured. and, i’d kind of argue against unlike aggregates for the same reason. aggregate live interview with live interview, and ivr with ivr, but don’t aggregate online samples with ivr and live interviews. if the ivr is truly measuring undecideds in such a way that reduces the sample size and inflates the conservatives, and you take more ivr in the sample, than you would expect inflated conservative numbers in the end result.
it’s not enough to do the “one of these things is not like the others” skit and rule ekos out. but, i think this experiment with ivr and live interviewer is maybe pulling out a bit of a bias, and destroying the ability to adjust for it by mixing the data up. that, i think, is a methodological flaw.
www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/and-the-winner-is-we-dont-know/#comment-59737
i just want to add that the actual results of the mainstreet poll are
lib 34
con 30
ndp 19
und 10
and, once again, you see the relationship that shows up with this “dithering progressive” effect over ivr, and it’s subsequent inflation of the conservatives due to a decrease in sample space. and, it again absolutely nails the conservatives at a 30% flatline, which has been true for months and months.
--
angus reid is also an online panel.
the shy tory effect is bunk. but, we seem to be seeing a “dithering progressive” effect in the ivrs – it is absolutely consistent.
passive consumers need to understand that pollsters don’t just collect opinions and send them out. they modify the results to fit the census, and there’s some interpretation in the process. that could be a part of the difference you’re seeing.
i’m also not sure that the blended sample is the best idea, because of the way that undecideds are being measured. and, i’d kind of argue against unlike aggregates for the same reason. aggregate live interview with live interview, and ivr with ivr, but don’t aggregate online samples with ivr and live interviews. if the ivr is truly measuring undecideds in such a way that reduces the sample size and inflates the conservatives, and you take more ivr in the sample, than you would expect inflated conservative numbers in the end result.
it’s not enough to do the “one of these things is not like the others” skit and rule ekos out. but, i think this experiment with ivr and live interviewer is maybe pulling out a bit of a bias, and destroying the ability to adjust for it by mixing the data up. that, i think, is a methodological flaw.
www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/and-the-winner-is-we-dont-know/#comment-59737
i just want to add that the actual results of the mainstreet poll are
lib 34
con 30
ndp 19
und 10
and, once again, you see the relationship that shows up with this “dithering progressive” effect over ivr, and it’s subsequent inflation of the conservatives due to a decrease in sample space. and, it again absolutely nails the conservatives at a 30% flatline, which has been true for months and months.
--
angus reid is also an online panel.
the shy tory effect is bunk. but, we seem to be seeing a “dithering progressive” effect in the ivrs – it is absolutely consistent.
so, i'm launching a vlog...
in fact, i wish i had launched this three or four years ago. it could have caught me hitch-hiking, or maybe caught a few things from occupy.
vlogs are largely trivial. it's what a vlog is. sometimes, you'll have to watch me make spaghetti or something. but, i go for long walks, too - routinely. not just in windsor, but also in detroit. concerts. recording. overall, i'm probably considerably more exciting than you or most people you know are, even if i'm essentially always by myself.
what i'm thinking is that it might act as a reasonable front-end for the music production. i was using the comment system to great effect for a while, but youtube then went and changed the way the system works in such a way that it almost seems designed to explicitly prevent me from doing what i was doing. they sell ads, right? if i'm using the comment system for free advertising, i'm breaking their model. so, they've done several things - i could list 5 or 6 - to make it harder for people like me to do what i was doing. i got a little touch of exposure, anyways - enough to make me think restrategizing is worthwhile. but, it's clear that they've broken what i was doing. they've crashed me from 200 hits/day to 10 hits/day.
this seems to be a better advertising strategy for right now. we'll see how it goes.
i bought a $50 camera from best buy. it should be here in five or six days. expect this to launch saturday; i'll be posting daily updates here, as well.
in fact, i wish i had launched this three or four years ago. it could have caught me hitch-hiking, or maybe caught a few things from occupy.
vlogs are largely trivial. it's what a vlog is. sometimes, you'll have to watch me make spaghetti or something. but, i go for long walks, too - routinely. not just in windsor, but also in detroit. concerts. recording. overall, i'm probably considerably more exciting than you or most people you know are, even if i'm essentially always by myself.
what i'm thinking is that it might act as a reasonable front-end for the music production. i was using the comment system to great effect for a while, but youtube then went and changed the way the system works in such a way that it almost seems designed to explicitly prevent me from doing what i was doing. they sell ads, right? if i'm using the comment system for free advertising, i'm breaking their model. so, they've done several things - i could list 5 or 6 - to make it harder for people like me to do what i was doing. i got a little touch of exposure, anyways - enough to make me think restrategizing is worthwhile. but, it's clear that they've broken what i was doing. they've crashed me from 200 hits/day to 10 hits/day.
this seems to be a better advertising strategy for right now. we'll see how it goes.
i bought a $50 camera from best buy. it should be here in five or six days. expect this to launch saturday; i'll be posting daily updates here, as well.
yeah.
i just ordered this cheap little guy:
i'd normally go and pick it up because shipping is half the price of the object, but this looks like it's last gen - that they're trying to get rid of it, really - and so it's free shipping.
the key point is it's cheap. but, it's also waterproof, which is....i'm not going to go swimming with it, but i don't want to worry about it in the rain, either.
the actual truth is that i'm really not well-versed in the language of megapixels and digital video. i'm going to guess that the differences in video quality past a certain point are largely trivial. and, you know, i don't know how long i'm going to do this for. i'm not expecting pristine quality, but i'm maybe not requiring it just quite yet, either. i'm sure it'll be fine - or better than fine, really.
i've got plenty of rechargeable batteries, although i'll have to experiment with how much power the device uses. i'll have to figure out how much storage i'm going to need for an average ten hour adventure and get the right sized sd card, as well. i suspect my old 2 gb card for pictures is too small.
the actual reality is that this device was probably ten times the price ten years ago. this is how i operate with technology - i wait, i get the last gen when it's falling into obsolescence and then i actually use it to it's potential. i'm lucky enough to be living through the period where technology is plateauing, allowing for what is truly high end technology to sell for basically nothing, in order to drive the market. i actually probably fluked out on that.
should be here by friday.
i just ordered this cheap little guy:
i'd normally go and pick it up because shipping is half the price of the object, but this looks like it's last gen - that they're trying to get rid of it, really - and so it's free shipping.
the key point is it's cheap. but, it's also waterproof, which is....i'm not going to go swimming with it, but i don't want to worry about it in the rain, either.
the actual truth is that i'm really not well-versed in the language of megapixels and digital video. i'm going to guess that the differences in video quality past a certain point are largely trivial. and, you know, i don't know how long i'm going to do this for. i'm not expecting pristine quality, but i'm maybe not requiring it just quite yet, either. i'm sure it'll be fine - or better than fine, really.
i've got plenty of rechargeable batteries, although i'll have to experiment with how much power the device uses. i'll have to figure out how much storage i'm going to need for an average ten hour adventure and get the right sized sd card, as well. i suspect my old 2 gb card for pictures is too small.
the actual reality is that this device was probably ten times the price ten years ago. this is how i operate with technology - i wait, i get the last gen when it's falling into obsolescence and then i actually use it to it's potential. i'm lucky enough to be living through the period where technology is plateauing, allowing for what is truly high end technology to sell for basically nothing, in order to drive the market. i actually probably fluked out on that.
should be here by friday.
i'm thinking about starting a vlog.
all the popular vlogs are families. it's great and everything, from a certain perspective, i guess. i think i have something a bit more unique to offer - single transgender canadian that is a total loner and is right on the us border and that is often on foot, heads to concerts, etc.
i guess a lot of it is going to be kind of trivial, but it's what a vlog is, right? a lot of it it's going to be me walking around by myself and talking into the mic.
i think there's some other upsides to it. i would be comfortable monetizing a vlog channel, for example - i won't monetize the music channel. it could maybe create exposure for the music, and possibly even income.
i'm sort of wishing i'd vlogged some of the more erratic moments of the last three or four years. hitch-hiking from ottawa to windsor, through toronto, would be great to have on tape; i tried to document it through writing, but it only gets you so far. and i'm sure i'll have more than a few more crazy moments.
in fact, i suspect halloween could be a bit of a ride, with deafhaven early and probably hitting a rave later. it's going to depend on the weather, though - i'm not floating around detroit all night if it's snowing.
all the popular vlogs are families. it's great and everything, from a certain perspective, i guess. i think i have something a bit more unique to offer - single transgender canadian that is a total loner and is right on the us border and that is often on foot, heads to concerts, etc.
i guess a lot of it is going to be kind of trivial, but it's what a vlog is, right? a lot of it it's going to be me walking around by myself and talking into the mic.
i think there's some other upsides to it. i would be comfortable monetizing a vlog channel, for example - i won't monetize the music channel. it could maybe create exposure for the music, and possibly even income.
i'm sort of wishing i'd vlogged some of the more erratic moments of the last three or four years. hitch-hiking from ottawa to windsor, through toronto, would be great to have on tape; i tried to document it through writing, but it only gets you so far. and i'm sure i'll have more than a few more crazy moments.
in fact, i suspect halloween could be a bit of a ride, with deafhaven early and probably hitting a rave later. it's going to depend on the weather, though - i'm not floating around detroit all night if it's snowing.
the error he's making is thinking that harper is going to be replaced by a moderate. harper probably actually *will* step down mid mandate - he's suggested as much.
but, all evidence suggests that jason kenney is the overwhelming favourite to replace him, and he makes harper seem downright liberal, in comparison. voting for the party is going to throw us into a war over abortion and capital punishment.
i know that's not what he wants. he's just lost in a fantasy reality, where some old tory can mount a comeback, get the reformers under control and sail back towards the policies of clark & mulroney.
first, it's clear that the neither the numbers nor the candidates exist. who is his phantom candidate? the harris tories that were brought on are really just as awful. is he going to bring jean charest back? or joe clark, himself? danny williams? there's no obvious candidate.
but, if it somehow happens? then the west starts another party. there's been rumbling for years that harper is too left wing. i'm not making that up.
he's disenfranchised. he's not a liberal, and doesn't want to be. that's fine. i'm not a liberal, and don't want to be either - although i'm on the other side of the spectrum. i get that. i get not wanting to vote for the bloody liberals, yet again, and taking the awful with the mediocre because there's not a better choice. but what he's projecting doesn't exist.
the ndp tried to park themselves in this space, but it didn't get the traction. if they stay there (and i hope they don't...), it might get some traction in the next election.
for now, what it reflects is the disenfranchisement of old tory canada, and it's difficulty coming to terms with what the real options are.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-globe-harper-endorsement-reaction-1.3275224
peppypoo
The PM is not going anyway, he will win a majority government hands down. The National press finally has woken from their dreams and has now seen that Justin & the liberal party are the same old rotten corrupt party they have always been, new face same old bunch of hacks running it.
jessica murray
right.
listen: they're all corrupt.
people need to vote on policies, and expect corruption from all of them.
but, all evidence suggests that jason kenney is the overwhelming favourite to replace him, and he makes harper seem downright liberal, in comparison. voting for the party is going to throw us into a war over abortion and capital punishment.
i know that's not what he wants. he's just lost in a fantasy reality, where some old tory can mount a comeback, get the reformers under control and sail back towards the policies of clark & mulroney.
first, it's clear that the neither the numbers nor the candidates exist. who is his phantom candidate? the harris tories that were brought on are really just as awful. is he going to bring jean charest back? or joe clark, himself? danny williams? there's no obvious candidate.
but, if it somehow happens? then the west starts another party. there's been rumbling for years that harper is too left wing. i'm not making that up.
he's disenfranchised. he's not a liberal, and doesn't want to be. that's fine. i'm not a liberal, and don't want to be either - although i'm on the other side of the spectrum. i get that. i get not wanting to vote for the bloody liberals, yet again, and taking the awful with the mediocre because there's not a better choice. but what he's projecting doesn't exist.
the ndp tried to park themselves in this space, but it didn't get the traction. if they stay there (and i hope they don't...), it might get some traction in the next election.
for now, what it reflects is the disenfranchisement of old tory canada, and it's difficulty coming to terms with what the real options are.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-globe-harper-endorsement-reaction-1.3275224
peppypoo
The PM is not going anyway, he will win a majority government hands down. The National press finally has woken from their dreams and has now seen that Justin & the liberal party are the same old rotten corrupt party they have always been, new face same old bunch of hacks running it.
jessica murray
right.
listen: they're all corrupt.
people need to vote on policies, and expect corruption from all of them.
Alan Cane
My conclusion? Liberal voters are weak.
jessica murray
CONSERVATIVE VOTERS STRONG LIKE BEAR.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-polls-oct16-1.3273313
My conclusion? Liberal voters are weak.
jessica murray
CONSERVATIVE VOTERS STRONG LIKE BEAR.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-polls-oct16-1.3273313
we've been brainwashed by conservative "Strong Leader" propaganda for so long that we've forgotten that we live in a parliamentary system, where the prime minister is meant to be first amongst equals.
i'm personally very excited about the potential of devolution of power out of the prime minister's office and back where it belongs: in cabinet.
the prime minister is not meant to be an authoritarian leader. the prime minister is meant to be a dignitary - a figurehead. a pretty face to rile up the masses, and allow a party to govern.
it's about time. and i hope to the god i don't believe in that this is the last we ever hear of "Strong Leadership".
www.huffingtonpost.ca/g-elijah-dann/justin-isnt-ready_b_8288558.html
i'm personally very excited about the potential of devolution of power out of the prime minister's office and back where it belongs: in cabinet.
the prime minister is not meant to be an authoritarian leader. the prime minister is meant to be a dignitary - a figurehead. a pretty face to rile up the masses, and allow a party to govern.
it's about time. and i hope to the god i don't believe in that this is the last we ever hear of "Strong Leadership".
www.huffingtonpost.ca/g-elijah-dann/justin-isnt-ready_b_8288558.html
"Right now, there are five Canadians working for every retiree and that's going to fall by almost half to 2.7 by 2030. "
and, if you look at net wealth, you see that the average baby boomer is worth two to three times that of the average gen xer.
the reality is that the boomers have all the wealth. part of understanding the generational shift is understanding the shifts in wealth. the image of the impoverished pensioner that developed in the 80s and 90s was largely a consequence of the boomers taking over their parents' wealth, and then not giving any back; now, when they reach that age themselves, they will hoard it as long as they can, and refuse to pass it down.
the way to care for the boomers is to tax the boomers. tobin taxes are probably the best option. and, they should really remove tax breaks like income splitting, too. when you look at hard numbers with a sober mindset, you'll see that there really isn't a problem at all - except that they're not paying their share, and truly never have.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/13/national-seniors-strategy-canada-election-eldercare_n_8260078.html
and, if you look at net wealth, you see that the average baby boomer is worth two to three times that of the average gen xer.
the reality is that the boomers have all the wealth. part of understanding the generational shift is understanding the shifts in wealth. the image of the impoverished pensioner that developed in the 80s and 90s was largely a consequence of the boomers taking over their parents' wealth, and then not giving any back; now, when they reach that age themselves, they will hoard it as long as they can, and refuse to pass it down.
the way to care for the boomers is to tax the boomers. tobin taxes are probably the best option. and, they should really remove tax breaks like income splitting, too. when you look at hard numbers with a sober mindset, you'll see that there really isn't a problem at all - except that they're not paying their share, and truly never have.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/13/national-seniors-strategy-canada-election-eldercare_n_8260078.html
Friday, October 16, 2015
if you were to do that to my computer, i would sneak into your house at night, get your password out of your temp files, go home, log into your account, change your password, delete all your videos and upload episodes of fawlty towers on an hourly basis, until i run out - when i would then block all your subscribers.
well, this reeks of desperation.
her riding is generally considered safe. it says a lot about the internal polling she's doing.
there hasn't been much media coverage of this the last few months. and, there's not really a lot of "ins" that the liberals have in rural ontario to work with. i was thinking about internet access - which the liberals should really seriously consider, as a way to open isolated communities up to the outside world. but, i could see how home mail delivery might be considered sort of substantial, if you live in a farm in the middle of nowhere.
i wonder how applicable that is elsewhere....
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-cheryl-gallant-s-claim-she-ll-save-canada-post-raises-ire-of-postal-workers-1.3272916
her riding is generally considered safe. it says a lot about the internal polling she's doing.
there hasn't been much media coverage of this the last few months. and, there's not really a lot of "ins" that the liberals have in rural ontario to work with. i was thinking about internet access - which the liberals should really seriously consider, as a way to open isolated communities up to the outside world. but, i could see how home mail delivery might be considered sort of substantial, if you live in a farm in the middle of nowhere.
i wonder how applicable that is elsewhere....
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-cheryl-gallant-s-claim-she-ll-save-canada-post-raises-ire-of-postal-workers-1.3272916
i would take any predictions in quebec at this point with a grain of salt. we're going to be seeing splits and upsets all over the place in ways the models are not robust enough to pull out.
but, as far as i can tell, there's really not any reason to think the conservative or bloc totals will be significantly different than they were in 2011. a point or two one way or the other.
the only big movement seems to be somewhere between a ten and a fifteen point swing from the ndp to the liberals. this will help the liberals in montreal, and the odd riding outside it. it may also help the conservatives in a seat or two around quebec city. but it's going to help the bloc dramatically, even if they only manage to get what they got last time.
the forum poll released this morning should raise some eyebrows, in it's projection of 19 seats for the bloc. that's way higher than anybody else (except me) has suggested. i'm going to expect between 10-30.
the reason is that the movement from ndp--->liberals is going to open up a lot of seats for the bloc, even with the bloc staying put or even being down a little. something that got lost in the shuffle of the ndp pulling in bloc support was that the ndp also got a hefty ten point swing from the liberals. there were a lot of close ndp-bloc races. you take away that ten point liberal swing, or even increase the reversal to 15, and these ndp seats start melting away into the st. lawerence, mostly in favour of the bloc.
the models will have a hard time with this. but, with that 10-15 point swing from the ndp to the liberals, all the bloc need to do is run somewhere in the low 20s to win a substantial number of seats back. 19 is probably about right, in terms of what to expect.
and, i'll say this again - with the liberals running ahead of the ndp now, apparently, it's hard to see how the ndp win outremont, which is mulcair's seat.
the cbc model has a clause in it that gives party leaders an advantage. it's the kind of thing that's probably true, most of the time. but outremont is one of the most liberal seats in the country. and, mulcair was of course a quebec liberal cabinet minister - which likely is a big part of the reason he was able to win the riding in the first place.
now that the dust has settled, and the liberals are in reach of a strong minority or even a majority, it seems obvious that outremont should swing, party leader or not.
and that's going to have a big effect on how the parliament operates, in the case of a liberal minority.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-quebec-split-michelle-gagnon-1.3272915
Mo
harper surging in quebec? somebody's got their hat on too tight!
jessica murray
there was a blip in the polls about the same time that the niqab thing came up. it didn't sustain itself. it was probably just sampling error.
but, it's a good lesson in two truths:
1) day-to-day polling can be erratic.
2) you can't trust the media to interpret polls.
but, as far as i can tell, there's really not any reason to think the conservative or bloc totals will be significantly different than they were in 2011. a point or two one way or the other.
the only big movement seems to be somewhere between a ten and a fifteen point swing from the ndp to the liberals. this will help the liberals in montreal, and the odd riding outside it. it may also help the conservatives in a seat or two around quebec city. but it's going to help the bloc dramatically, even if they only manage to get what they got last time.
the forum poll released this morning should raise some eyebrows, in it's projection of 19 seats for the bloc. that's way higher than anybody else (except me) has suggested. i'm going to expect between 10-30.
the reason is that the movement from ndp--->liberals is going to open up a lot of seats for the bloc, even with the bloc staying put or even being down a little. something that got lost in the shuffle of the ndp pulling in bloc support was that the ndp also got a hefty ten point swing from the liberals. there were a lot of close ndp-bloc races. you take away that ten point liberal swing, or even increase the reversal to 15, and these ndp seats start melting away into the st. lawerence, mostly in favour of the bloc.
the models will have a hard time with this. but, with that 10-15 point swing from the ndp to the liberals, all the bloc need to do is run somewhere in the low 20s to win a substantial number of seats back. 19 is probably about right, in terms of what to expect.
and, i'll say this again - with the liberals running ahead of the ndp now, apparently, it's hard to see how the ndp win outremont, which is mulcair's seat.
the cbc model has a clause in it that gives party leaders an advantage. it's the kind of thing that's probably true, most of the time. but outremont is one of the most liberal seats in the country. and, mulcair was of course a quebec liberal cabinet minister - which likely is a big part of the reason he was able to win the riding in the first place.
now that the dust has settled, and the liberals are in reach of a strong minority or even a majority, it seems obvious that outremont should swing, party leader or not.
and that's going to have a big effect on how the parliament operates, in the case of a liberal minority.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-quebec-split-michelle-gagnon-1.3272915
Mo
harper surging in quebec? somebody's got their hat on too tight!
jessica murray
there was a blip in the polls about the same time that the niqab thing came up. it didn't sustain itself. it was probably just sampling error.
but, it's a good lesson in two truths:
1) day-to-day polling can be erratic.
2) you can't trust the media to interpret polls.
i would have actually expected advance voters to support the conservatives in much higher numbers, because they have the highest number of decided & dedicated voters. the average conservative voter made up their mind months or years before the writ dropped. the election isn’t a period of contemplation, for the bulk of them. i would have expected something more like 45%. so, those are actually relatively good numbers for the liberals in the advance polls.
in a sense, polling the advance voters does the same thing that removing very high numbers of undecideds does. when you reduce the sample space to dedicated decideds, the conservatives invariably get the highest numbers.
to put it another way: if the liberals were clearly ahead in the advance polls (remember that there’s margins here…it’s a statistical tie), even by a point beyond the margin, you’d expect them to be on their way to a a huge majority. that would demonstrate endemic apathy in the conservative base, which you expect to dominate advance polls because they’re not deliberating anything. these numbers, as they are, suggest some pretty low levels of enthusiasm for the conservatives in their base. you may see the situation reversed (as it was in the 2014 ontario election); it may be the conservatives that end up with some turnout problems.
i mean, that’s just unusually low for a party that continually polls 75+ in terms of dedicated voter support. what are they waiting for? why *didn’t* they vote in greater numbers in advance polls?
www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/stalemate-continues
in a sense, polling the advance voters does the same thing that removing very high numbers of undecideds does. when you reduce the sample space to dedicated decideds, the conservatives invariably get the highest numbers.
to put it another way: if the liberals were clearly ahead in the advance polls (remember that there’s margins here…it’s a statistical tie), even by a point beyond the margin, you’d expect them to be on their way to a a huge majority. that would demonstrate endemic apathy in the conservative base, which you expect to dominate advance polls because they’re not deliberating anything. these numbers, as they are, suggest some pretty low levels of enthusiasm for the conservatives in their base. you may see the situation reversed (as it was in the 2014 ontario election); it may be the conservatives that end up with some turnout problems.
i mean, that’s just unusually low for a party that continually polls 75+ in terms of dedicated voter support. what are they waiting for? why *didn’t* they vote in greater numbers in advance polls?
www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/stalemate-continues
so, that means there's a baseball game on election day, right?
*sigh*
can we sue the team for breaking the social contract? hold them liable for gross negligence? there should be some kind of rule against this. they should have to put the game off a day.
if we're lucky, it's just going to siphon out the rob ford voters. but, i hope it's not a turnout issue.
www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/blue-jays-bautista-batflip-meme-1.3273814
Eric Haskins
Right...it's the team's fault. Grow up.
jessica murray
because politics are childish and baseball is grown up. right.
they have the option to forfeit the game - and i'd argue that this is the socially responsible thing to do. it would send a powerful message. but, perhaps more realistically, i think the league has a very strong responsibility to step in and postpone the game for 24 hours. and, i would suggest that they should be viewed in a very poor light if they decide to go ahead with it.
elections are important social events that truly matter to adults; childish and silly things like baseball games, that do not matter, should never be scheduled in a way that interferes with important social events like elections. and, i would argue quite honestly that the league and the team have some responsibility for gross negligence in distracting people from things of importance, and should be held liable for it.
it was certainly tongue in cheek, but i also did certainly mean it.
the tort doesn't actually exist. i would lose the case. i'd love to argue it, though.
*sigh*
can we sue the team for breaking the social contract? hold them liable for gross negligence? there should be some kind of rule against this. they should have to put the game off a day.
if we're lucky, it's just going to siphon out the rob ford voters. but, i hope it's not a turnout issue.
www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/blue-jays-bautista-batflip-meme-1.3273814
Eric Haskins
Right...it's the team's fault. Grow up.
jessica murray
because politics are childish and baseball is grown up. right.
they have the option to forfeit the game - and i'd argue that this is the socially responsible thing to do. it would send a powerful message. but, perhaps more realistically, i think the league has a very strong responsibility to step in and postpone the game for 24 hours. and, i would suggest that they should be viewed in a very poor light if they decide to go ahead with it.
elections are important social events that truly matter to adults; childish and silly things like baseball games, that do not matter, should never be scheduled in a way that interferes with important social events like elections. and, i would argue quite honestly that the league and the team have some responsibility for gross negligence in distracting people from things of importance, and should be held liable for it.
it was certainly tongue in cheek, but i also did certainly mean it.
the tort doesn't actually exist. i would lose the case. i'd love to argue it, though.
i've been over this before. they expect me to show up dressed like a
prostitute. and i think a part of it may be trying to get them to
understand that i'm 35 years old. i don't look it. i get that. but the
truth is that i'm old, and i dress like i'm old, which is to be
expected. i don't have any patience with this "35 is the new 25" stuff,
and this refusal to grow up. i don't want to be 25. i'm happy to be out
of that headspace. i don't want to walk into a doctor's office and be
analyzed like a piece of meat.
it's dehumanizing.
these doctors - they're creepy old men. i'd mostly rather they didn't touch me at all, kind of thing. to have them evaluate your gender based on whether they find you attractive is - there's something wrong with this. it's like, "i'm wearing a sweater because i don't want your creepy ass ogling me, you sonofabitch.".
they honestly seem to expect me to walk in in fishnets and heels and laugh provocatively when they speak. it's really disgusting.
it's this base archetype of patriarchally enforced "femininity" that they want reflected back at them.
i had one ask "what are you, some kind of lesbian?".
like as though that might disqualify me, if it were true. (i'm asexual. just no interest in sex.)
i had another frown and clearly write me off when i claimed i was a feminist. as though transwomen being feminists is some kind of contradiction, and disqualifying.
it's 2015, guys. i know you're in your 60s. but, you could try to keep up just a little.
it's dehumanizing.
these doctors - they're creepy old men. i'd mostly rather they didn't touch me at all, kind of thing. to have them evaluate your gender based on whether they find you attractive is - there's something wrong with this. it's like, "i'm wearing a sweater because i don't want your creepy ass ogling me, you sonofabitch.".
they honestly seem to expect me to walk in in fishnets and heels and laugh provocatively when they speak. it's really disgusting.
it's this base archetype of patriarchally enforced "femininity" that they want reflected back at them.
i had one ask "what are you, some kind of lesbian?".
like as though that might disqualify me, if it were true. (i'm asexual. just no interest in sex.)
i had another frown and clearly write me off when i claimed i was a feminist. as though transwomen being feminists is some kind of contradiction, and disqualifying.
it's 2015, guys. i know you're in your 60s. but, you could try to keep up just a little.
that week just zoomed by...
i've had some running around to do with doctors. again. they're such assholes. and often surprisingly averse to evidence-based reasoning, in favour of rigidity to strict protocol. you'd think you're dealing with the military half the time...
they've got me in this ridiculous loop. the same people that just rediagnosed me with gender dysphoria want me to go through a training program in toronto for people that have yet been diagnosed. this is ridiculous; i could be teaching the program. but, i'd do it if it's a day program and there's an easy end to it. but, it's a months long program with a year long waiting list. and, here's the bizarre part: there's an open letter on their web page requesting that doctors do not send people through this program and just assign hormones themselves.
so, they won't represcribe until they send me through a program that is telling them to go ahead and prescribe already. it's just rigidity to a set of protocols, oblivious of anything resembling independent thought or adherence to logic.
you can imagine a far side cartoon at a school for the gifted with a star on the floor beside a christmas tree and a child frowning - because there's no instruction manual.
so, i'm calling more doctors. and more doctors. until i can find one with some common fucking sense. surely, it's inevitable, right?
i mean, it's not an option to go off hormones. i can't detransition. i'm already done. i'd sooner kill myself than put myself in that kind of state. and, if i do, it will be in their front office.
i've got some things done, though, and am ready to sit down for a few days.
i'm going to take a shower this afternoon and should hopefully get some more troubleshooting in tonight.
i've had some running around to do with doctors. again. they're such assholes. and often surprisingly averse to evidence-based reasoning, in favour of rigidity to strict protocol. you'd think you're dealing with the military half the time...
they've got me in this ridiculous loop. the same people that just rediagnosed me with gender dysphoria want me to go through a training program in toronto for people that have yet been diagnosed. this is ridiculous; i could be teaching the program. but, i'd do it if it's a day program and there's an easy end to it. but, it's a months long program with a year long waiting list. and, here's the bizarre part: there's an open letter on their web page requesting that doctors do not send people through this program and just assign hormones themselves.
so, they won't represcribe until they send me through a program that is telling them to go ahead and prescribe already. it's just rigidity to a set of protocols, oblivious of anything resembling independent thought or adherence to logic.
you can imagine a far side cartoon at a school for the gifted with a star on the floor beside a christmas tree and a child frowning - because there's no instruction manual.
so, i'm calling more doctors. and more doctors. until i can find one with some common fucking sense. surely, it's inevitable, right?
i mean, it's not an option to go off hormones. i can't detransition. i'm already done. i'd sooner kill myself than put myself in that kind of state. and, if i do, it will be in their front office.
i've got some things done, though, and am ready to sit down for a few days.
i'm going to take a shower this afternoon and should hopefully get some more troubleshooting in tonight.
sampling frames / area codes
To: nnanos@nanosresearch.com, fgraves@ekos.com, lbozinoff@forumresearch.com
hi.
i don't think it's going to require much of an argument from me to have you acknowledge that provincial wide data isn't very useful to plug into riding modelling the way it's being done; the idea that a swing in vancouver might be felt in kelowna, or that a swing in montreal might be felt in sherbrooke, is not really well thought out. canadian provinces are big and diverse and often have two or three proper sample frames, as opposed to american states, which are mostly small and get away with one, or maybe two if you're being really rigorous. if people doing models are to create systems that are robust enough to handle the massive and unpredictable swings we're seeing in this election, they're going to need more targeted sample frames to begin with.
but, you don't model; you poll. maybe, if a few of you might want to think about modelling, we could get some better sample frames.
for right now, i know you're focused on what you're doing. but, releasing data organized by area code would probably be a five minute job, right? organize by area code. print. done...
in lieu of better sample frames for the models, maybe it might help people understand things a little bit better, so they're not being led astray by models that are operating well beyond the assumptions they were constructed with.
j
hi.
i don't think it's going to require much of an argument from me to have you acknowledge that provincial wide data isn't very useful to plug into riding modelling the way it's being done; the idea that a swing in vancouver might be felt in kelowna, or that a swing in montreal might be felt in sherbrooke, is not really well thought out. canadian provinces are big and diverse and often have two or three proper sample frames, as opposed to american states, which are mostly small and get away with one, or maybe two if you're being really rigorous. if people doing models are to create systems that are robust enough to handle the massive and unpredictable swings we're seeing in this election, they're going to need more targeted sample frames to begin with.
but, you don't model; you poll. maybe, if a few of you might want to think about modelling, we could get some better sample frames.
for right now, i know you're focused on what you're doing. but, releasing data organized by area code would probably be a five minute job, right? organize by area code. print. done...
in lieu of better sample frames for the models, maybe it might help people understand things a little bit better, so they're not being led astray by models that are operating well beyond the assumptions they were constructed with.
j
lol. you old progressive conservatives, you...lost in the past. you're endorsing mulroney, guys. that was a long time ago. hopefully, the generational change in media follows the generational change in governance. it's long overdue.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/the-tories-deserve-another-mandate-stephen-harper-doesnt/article26842506/
wow. this struck a chord. ahaha.
again: it's easy to understand.
the media establishment in canada is run by upper class old tories that are in their 60s and 70s. old people. old money. old stock, even. they've been living in denial since the merger, just waiting for their old party to come back. and, when they vote for harper, they are not really voting for harper - they are voting for mulroney and clark and stanfield.
but, that party doesn't exist anymore.
maybe, if they go out and try really hard, they can find a way to recreate their old party, which now only exists in their own faded memories. but, this endorsement is putting the cart before the horse. and, it's only through their disconnect from reality, their projected fantasies, that they don't see how obvious that is.
if you want your pcs back, you do this:
1) you vote against the conservatives, however feels best to you. for the liberals. for the ndp. for the greens. or not at all.
2) then you get your candidate into the convention, and you get them to beat kenney. good luck on that, though - because the west of the country completely disagrees with you, and is going to support kenney.
i don't mean to be crass. i really don't. well, i'm known to be crass rather often, but i don't mean to be crass just right now.
this is a matter of an out of touch generation passing away. and, when that happens, things change - because these memories of stanfield and clark pass along with them.
then, we can get back to living in the present.
just one more reason to hope that retirement age gets pushed back to 65.
we need to get the progressive conservatives out of the media. it's really important. they don't exist. they haven't existed for a generation. we need perspectives rooted in the existing spectrum, not the spectrum of the 1980s.
kenney will win the convention on his stellar anti-abortion credentials. then, what are you going to do? keep plugging? keep hoping? keep waiting for it to turn around?
this doesn't happen.
meanwhile, the age required to remember the pcs increases. in 2019, it will be 31 years since 1988. which means, you'd need to be in your 50s to be old enough to remember voting pc.
there are not one but two generations of voters with no understanding of the term "progressive conservative" as anything beyond a bizarre oxymoron.
this past needs to be let go. most of the country has done so. the media is trailing far behind.
even if the fantasy that you can elect the conservatives and ditch harper is somehow plausible, what's in the pipeline, so to speak, is much more divisive - much more socially conservative, much more combative, much more regressive.
it's willful blindness and total delusion to see the future of the conservative party differently.
OgtheDim
Except they do exist all over the country and would be quite willing to vote for somebody unlike Kenny.
deathtokoalas
please. it's very clear that he wins the next convention. remember: the reform party was primarily created as a response to mulroney's non-reaction to morgantaler. that's what the base is all about. it's the number one driver of donations. it's the single greatest issue that drives new tory voters. not the economy. not security. not tough on crime. abortion.
just because old tories refuse to see this, or adjust to it, doesn't mean the facts aren't as they are.
you're not going to see a moderate replacement. harper IS the moderate. or the closest thing to one...
---
well, my golden retriever can catch better than stanfield. i don't know who even gets that anymore, besides the globe staff.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/the-tories-deserve-another-mandate-stephen-harper-doesnt/article26842506/
wow. this struck a chord. ahaha.
again: it's easy to understand.
the media establishment in canada is run by upper class old tories that are in their 60s and 70s. old people. old money. old stock, even. they've been living in denial since the merger, just waiting for their old party to come back. and, when they vote for harper, they are not really voting for harper - they are voting for mulroney and clark and stanfield.
but, that party doesn't exist anymore.
maybe, if they go out and try really hard, they can find a way to recreate their old party, which now only exists in their own faded memories. but, this endorsement is putting the cart before the horse. and, it's only through their disconnect from reality, their projected fantasies, that they don't see how obvious that is.
if you want your pcs back, you do this:
1) you vote against the conservatives, however feels best to you. for the liberals. for the ndp. for the greens. or not at all.
2) then you get your candidate into the convention, and you get them to beat kenney. good luck on that, though - because the west of the country completely disagrees with you, and is going to support kenney.
i don't mean to be crass. i really don't. well, i'm known to be crass rather often, but i don't mean to be crass just right now.
this is a matter of an out of touch generation passing away. and, when that happens, things change - because these memories of stanfield and clark pass along with them.
then, we can get back to living in the present.
just one more reason to hope that retirement age gets pushed back to 65.
we need to get the progressive conservatives out of the media. it's really important. they don't exist. they haven't existed for a generation. we need perspectives rooted in the existing spectrum, not the spectrum of the 1980s.
kenney will win the convention on his stellar anti-abortion credentials. then, what are you going to do? keep plugging? keep hoping? keep waiting for it to turn around?
this doesn't happen.
meanwhile, the age required to remember the pcs increases. in 2019, it will be 31 years since 1988. which means, you'd need to be in your 50s to be old enough to remember voting pc.
there are not one but two generations of voters with no understanding of the term "progressive conservative" as anything beyond a bizarre oxymoron.
this past needs to be let go. most of the country has done so. the media is trailing far behind.
even if the fantasy that you can elect the conservatives and ditch harper is somehow plausible, what's in the pipeline, so to speak, is much more divisive - much more socially conservative, much more combative, much more regressive.
it's willful blindness and total delusion to see the future of the conservative party differently.
OgtheDim
Except they do exist all over the country and would be quite willing to vote for somebody unlike Kenny.
deathtokoalas
please. it's very clear that he wins the next convention. remember: the reform party was primarily created as a response to mulroney's non-reaction to morgantaler. that's what the base is all about. it's the number one driver of donations. it's the single greatest issue that drives new tory voters. not the economy. not security. not tough on crime. abortion.
just because old tories refuse to see this, or adjust to it, doesn't mean the facts aren't as they are.
you're not going to see a moderate replacement. harper IS the moderate. or the closest thing to one...
---
well, my golden retriever can catch better than stanfield. i don't know who even gets that anymore, besides the globe staff.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
if you're in calgary or edmonton, or red deer, you can get a good guess of where conservative support is by taking their 2011 number and multiplying it by 0.6. i've been over the details elsewhere. this is the short answer.
so, if your candidate got 65% in 2011, you can guess where they're at now by calculating 65*.6 = 39.
there are a lot of seats in play. 75*.6 = 45.
i can't tell you who's leading in any specific riding. but if you're in edmonton or calgary, and you want to vote against the conservatives, you're being given a chance to have your vote count that you may never see again, if you don't wipe them out. and, i think you *can* wipe them out this time. even kenney. even harper.
don't squander it.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/15/calgary-confederation-riding_n_8299638.html
Shana Proulx
you can also check the riding by riding predictions at threehundredeight.com for an idea of who is best positioned to beat Harper in your riding.
jessica amber murray
no!
that model is not going to work well this election, as it bases support on the previous election and distributes it uniformly. that's the long version.
one example is edmonton centre. the liberals performed higher there in 2011, so the models suggest the liberals are ahead. but riding polls suggest it's a two-way race between the conservatives and ndp.
if you follow the models, it will produce vote splitting.
consult riding polls if you can find them. do not rely on models - they are going to be very flawed, this time around, because we're seeing massive, unpredictable swings almost everywhere.
i've sent emails to leadnow to get more riding polls in calgary and edmonton. i hope they do it. it could be the difference between albertans taking advantage of the election of a generation, or them banging their heads against the wall for the next fifty years.
there are riding polls here.
but be careful of dates; don't take anything done before oct 1 seriously, and take the newest ones the most seriously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2015_by_constituency#Alberta
Steve Furr
And therein lies the problem with strategic voting -- ppl can't even agree on the proper strategy. Heck, they don't even understand the data they are relying on so casually.
The riding model from three hundred and eight does NOT base support on the previous election and distribute it uniformly --- whatever that's supposed to mean.
The model uses a proportional swing to adjust the previous election's results by the difference in each party's regional polling results from their proportion of the vote from the last election. They then further adjust by factors for incumbency, star candidates, etc.
Hard to say that local riding polls are better. In order for strategic voting to work, you have to have a threshold (lead) for the CPC that can be overcome by strategic voters shifting allegiances. In many / most cases, this will be a three-way race.
There's no way a local riding poll with a small sample (<500) is going to give you a reasonable enough margin of error to correctly guess (in a distributed thinking fashion) who to shift from or to. This is compounded by the relative infrequency in which local riding polls are conducted, meaning they won't often track momentum effectively.
If I had to choose, I'd probably go by 308. I hope it's not a sucker's game.
If you are fortunate enough to live in a riding where there's a clear two-way race between the CPC and Libs or NDP (say, when 308, tooclosetocall and riding polls all agree), then by all means make sure you vote for the second place candidate. If not, good luck strategic voting.
.. and if you live in the Lower Mainland and you're looking at a poll that's more than a week old? Forget it. The momentum shift in regional polls, exceeds anything local riding results were likely to tell you. Ditto Ontario. At least in AB, you're likely to see something more stable (Lib in Calgary; NDP in Edmonton).
jessica amber murray
"The model uses a proportional swing to adjust the previous election's results by the difference in each party's regional polling results from their proportion of the vote from the last election. They then further adjust by factors for incumbency, star candidates, etc."
it uses a uniform proportional swing as a base, adds it to the last election's results and then makes things up regarding incumbency and "star candidates".
i'm going to ignore the making things up part, because it's just making things up, and focus on the parts that i can argue are poor modelling.
first, i will again point you to edmonton centre. the reason the models have the liberals ahead there is simply because they polled higher than the ndp in 2011. is that a reasonable assumption? it can be sometimes. but a model like this would be unable to predict a situation where the liberals are up province wide, and you have a swing from the liberals to the ndp in a specific riding. i want to be clear: i'm not saying it would have a hard time predicting this. it would be unable to predict this. ever.
he might argue it's unlikely. but in a situation like alberta, it really isn't. the conservatives are dominant. historically, the liberal and ndp votes have swung around all over the place. it is never a good idea to try and guess existing support for the ndp or liberals based on previous support in calgary or edmonton. there is too much volatility. the model requires stability, which does not exist there.
now, we need to be clear on the next point: there is no serious debate over whether modelling is preferable to direct riding polling. direct riding polling is always preferable. there are no exceptions to this. experiments are always preferable to theories. and, when experiments contradict theories, we conclude that the theories are wrong. the polling that puts the ndp ahead in the riding proves that the model is not working. it's not a debate. it's hard evidence v. a guess. this is clear, settled and beyond question.
the second problem is the uniformity of the proportional swing. i know that may be confusing to you. uniform proportional? you thought it was proportional, not uniform. it's not proportional in the sense of how it distributes, it's proportional in the sense of how it measures. it's uniform in how it distributes. so, i'll explain by example.
the conservatives are down 13 points in alberta, roughly, according to a few models. they were at 66 last election. they're at 53 this election. so, if you were naive, you could say they're down 13 points in every riding. but, that would mean they'd be down proportionally more in some ridings, and it's probably not true. when he says he's using proportionality what he means to say is that he wants to calculate what proportion of 66 that 13 is. it's about 20%. so that's the proportional part. i'm in support of this aspect of the model.
but, then he goes and says that they're down 20% in EVERY riding. that's the uniform part, and what i meant when i said it's distributed uniformly. is that a reasonable assumption?
in alberta, i claim it is not. the reason is that rural alberta never changes. if you look over the last hundred years, they always win by huge margins. 70. 80. it doesn't change. there is essentially no variability in rural alberta.
however, there is a reasonable amount of variability in calgary and edmonton. it doesn't always lead to the conservatives losing a seat. but they do from time to time.
so, given that there is no variability in rural alberta, and some variability in urban alberta, i would argue that the proportional swing should not be distributed uniformly, but proportionally to where the variability is - calgary and edmonton.
there's not any algebra required, because calgary and edmonton are, together, half the population of alberta. it's easy to calculate that a 40% swing in calgary and edmonton, combined with a 0% swing in the rural areas, adds up to a 20% swing province wide.
this is how i calculated that you can guess that they're at about 60% of where they were. and, this is verified through consulting multiple recently conducted riding polls in edmonton mills, edmonton centre and elsewhere. we need more in calgary, especially.
but, because there is historically so much volatility between the liberals and ndp, it is not a good idea to assume that the beneficiary will be the same as the second-place finisher in 2011.
we need riding polls to determine that.
in summary, if you want to use a model, you need to make assumptions. and, the outcome of the model is only as good as the assumptions are. in an election with small swings that are predictable, the models being used would be roughly accurate. however, this is an election with very large swings that are very unpredictable. and, by definition, the model will be unable to get much of it right.
the people pushing these models should not be surprised by this, and if they come out next week and offer shock at the poor performance of their models, it will only serve to demonstrate that they do not truly understand them. they should be coming out and explaining that the assumptions required for their models to work are not present, and that they expect their models to perform poorly. that admission, before hand, would save their credibility.
fwiw, i took the bare statistics requirements when i was completing my bachelor of mathematics, and focused mostly on computer mathematics when i was studying at the graduate level. my focus was on what is called pure mathematics - abstract algebra, and what calculus turns into once you get past a certain level.
another way to think of this is that if both parties are starting off under 25%, or even under 20%, it is not reasonable to assume that the one with the higher vote share has a significantly greater chance of taking advantage of a decrease in support for the incumbent. that is, because they both have a long way to go from a point of relative obscurity, it is never going to be clear which one is actually moving until the riding can be measured directly. a more complex model would need to play off these probabilities, and then argue there's a 34% chance the liberals are ahead, a 31% chance the ndp is ahead and a 35% chance the vote is split - or whatever the numbers say. but, then you can see that it's not so useful, is it?
so, i will reiterate: we can conclude the conservatives are likely down substantially in the urban ridings, and ballpark it to about 60%. we cannot use modelling techniques to reasonably suggest who is benefiting. this must be measured directly.
as it is, we have riding polls that suggest that the model is performing poorly - which should be expected in this election, if you really understand how it works.
strategic voters need to consult riding polls, please.
so, as an aside, what's the best way to do this, then? well, i think that the key is how the data is organized. we organize by provinces, which ignores the fact that provincial boundaries really aren't cultural boundaries, and it simply doesn't distribute well.
rather, i might suggest creating new categories.
1) western bc
2) vancouver / lower mainland
3) eastern bc / rural alberta / rural saskatchewan / rural manitoba
4) calgary-edmonton-regina-saskatoon-winnipeg [or maybe even cut that up a little]
5) northern ontario
6) southern & eastern rural ontario
7) southern & eastern urban ontario
8) western quebec [including gatineau & montreal]
9) eastern/southern quebec
10) maritimes
same number of categories, actually. but, it would increase accuracy dramatically.
so, if your candidate got 65% in 2011, you can guess where they're at now by calculating 65*.6 = 39.
there are a lot of seats in play. 75*.6 = 45.
i can't tell you who's leading in any specific riding. but if you're in edmonton or calgary, and you want to vote against the conservatives, you're being given a chance to have your vote count that you may never see again, if you don't wipe them out. and, i think you *can* wipe them out this time. even kenney. even harper.
don't squander it.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/15/calgary-confederation-riding_n_8299638.html
Shana Proulx
you can also check the riding by riding predictions at threehundredeight.com for an idea of who is best positioned to beat Harper in your riding.
jessica amber murray
no!
that model is not going to work well this election, as it bases support on the previous election and distributes it uniformly. that's the long version.
one example is edmonton centre. the liberals performed higher there in 2011, so the models suggest the liberals are ahead. but riding polls suggest it's a two-way race between the conservatives and ndp.
if you follow the models, it will produce vote splitting.
consult riding polls if you can find them. do not rely on models - they are going to be very flawed, this time around, because we're seeing massive, unpredictable swings almost everywhere.
i've sent emails to leadnow to get more riding polls in calgary and edmonton. i hope they do it. it could be the difference between albertans taking advantage of the election of a generation, or them banging their heads against the wall for the next fifty years.
there are riding polls here.
but be careful of dates; don't take anything done before oct 1 seriously, and take the newest ones the most seriously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2015_by_constituency#Alberta
Steve Furr
And therein lies the problem with strategic voting -- ppl can't even agree on the proper strategy. Heck, they don't even understand the data they are relying on so casually.
The riding model from three hundred and eight does NOT base support on the previous election and distribute it uniformly --- whatever that's supposed to mean.
The model uses a proportional swing to adjust the previous election's results by the difference in each party's regional polling results from their proportion of the vote from the last election. They then further adjust by factors for incumbency, star candidates, etc.
Hard to say that local riding polls are better. In order for strategic voting to work, you have to have a threshold (lead) for the CPC that can be overcome by strategic voters shifting allegiances. In many / most cases, this will be a three-way race.
There's no way a local riding poll with a small sample (<500) is going to give you a reasonable enough margin of error to correctly guess (in a distributed thinking fashion) who to shift from or to. This is compounded by the relative infrequency in which local riding polls are conducted, meaning they won't often track momentum effectively.
If I had to choose, I'd probably go by 308. I hope it's not a sucker's game.
If you are fortunate enough to live in a riding where there's a clear two-way race between the CPC and Libs or NDP (say, when 308, tooclosetocall and riding polls all agree), then by all means make sure you vote for the second place candidate. If not, good luck strategic voting.
.. and if you live in the Lower Mainland and you're looking at a poll that's more than a week old? Forget it. The momentum shift in regional polls, exceeds anything local riding results were likely to tell you. Ditto Ontario. At least in AB, you're likely to see something more stable (Lib in Calgary; NDP in Edmonton).
jessica amber murray
"The model uses a proportional swing to adjust the previous election's results by the difference in each party's regional polling results from their proportion of the vote from the last election. They then further adjust by factors for incumbency, star candidates, etc."
it uses a uniform proportional swing as a base, adds it to the last election's results and then makes things up regarding incumbency and "star candidates".
i'm going to ignore the making things up part, because it's just making things up, and focus on the parts that i can argue are poor modelling.
first, i will again point you to edmonton centre. the reason the models have the liberals ahead there is simply because they polled higher than the ndp in 2011. is that a reasonable assumption? it can be sometimes. but a model like this would be unable to predict a situation where the liberals are up province wide, and you have a swing from the liberals to the ndp in a specific riding. i want to be clear: i'm not saying it would have a hard time predicting this. it would be unable to predict this. ever.
he might argue it's unlikely. but in a situation like alberta, it really isn't. the conservatives are dominant. historically, the liberal and ndp votes have swung around all over the place. it is never a good idea to try and guess existing support for the ndp or liberals based on previous support in calgary or edmonton. there is too much volatility. the model requires stability, which does not exist there.
now, we need to be clear on the next point: there is no serious debate over whether modelling is preferable to direct riding polling. direct riding polling is always preferable. there are no exceptions to this. experiments are always preferable to theories. and, when experiments contradict theories, we conclude that the theories are wrong. the polling that puts the ndp ahead in the riding proves that the model is not working. it's not a debate. it's hard evidence v. a guess. this is clear, settled and beyond question.
the second problem is the uniformity of the proportional swing. i know that may be confusing to you. uniform proportional? you thought it was proportional, not uniform. it's not proportional in the sense of how it distributes, it's proportional in the sense of how it measures. it's uniform in how it distributes. so, i'll explain by example.
the conservatives are down 13 points in alberta, roughly, according to a few models. they were at 66 last election. they're at 53 this election. so, if you were naive, you could say they're down 13 points in every riding. but, that would mean they'd be down proportionally more in some ridings, and it's probably not true. when he says he's using proportionality what he means to say is that he wants to calculate what proportion of 66 that 13 is. it's about 20%. so that's the proportional part. i'm in support of this aspect of the model.
but, then he goes and says that they're down 20% in EVERY riding. that's the uniform part, and what i meant when i said it's distributed uniformly. is that a reasonable assumption?
in alberta, i claim it is not. the reason is that rural alberta never changes. if you look over the last hundred years, they always win by huge margins. 70. 80. it doesn't change. there is essentially no variability in rural alberta.
however, there is a reasonable amount of variability in calgary and edmonton. it doesn't always lead to the conservatives losing a seat. but they do from time to time.
so, given that there is no variability in rural alberta, and some variability in urban alberta, i would argue that the proportional swing should not be distributed uniformly, but proportionally to where the variability is - calgary and edmonton.
there's not any algebra required, because calgary and edmonton are, together, half the population of alberta. it's easy to calculate that a 40% swing in calgary and edmonton, combined with a 0% swing in the rural areas, adds up to a 20% swing province wide.
this is how i calculated that you can guess that they're at about 60% of where they were. and, this is verified through consulting multiple recently conducted riding polls in edmonton mills, edmonton centre and elsewhere. we need more in calgary, especially.
but, because there is historically so much volatility between the liberals and ndp, it is not a good idea to assume that the beneficiary will be the same as the second-place finisher in 2011.
we need riding polls to determine that.
in summary, if you want to use a model, you need to make assumptions. and, the outcome of the model is only as good as the assumptions are. in an election with small swings that are predictable, the models being used would be roughly accurate. however, this is an election with very large swings that are very unpredictable. and, by definition, the model will be unable to get much of it right.
the people pushing these models should not be surprised by this, and if they come out next week and offer shock at the poor performance of their models, it will only serve to demonstrate that they do not truly understand them. they should be coming out and explaining that the assumptions required for their models to work are not present, and that they expect their models to perform poorly. that admission, before hand, would save their credibility.
fwiw, i took the bare statistics requirements when i was completing my bachelor of mathematics, and focused mostly on computer mathematics when i was studying at the graduate level. my focus was on what is called pure mathematics - abstract algebra, and what calculus turns into once you get past a certain level.
another way to think of this is that if both parties are starting off under 25%, or even under 20%, it is not reasonable to assume that the one with the higher vote share has a significantly greater chance of taking advantage of a decrease in support for the incumbent. that is, because they both have a long way to go from a point of relative obscurity, it is never going to be clear which one is actually moving until the riding can be measured directly. a more complex model would need to play off these probabilities, and then argue there's a 34% chance the liberals are ahead, a 31% chance the ndp is ahead and a 35% chance the vote is split - or whatever the numbers say. but, then you can see that it's not so useful, is it?
so, i will reiterate: we can conclude the conservatives are likely down substantially in the urban ridings, and ballpark it to about 60%. we cannot use modelling techniques to reasonably suggest who is benefiting. this must be measured directly.
as it is, we have riding polls that suggest that the model is performing poorly - which should be expected in this election, if you really understand how it works.
strategic voters need to consult riding polls, please.
so, as an aside, what's the best way to do this, then? well, i think that the key is how the data is organized. we organize by provinces, which ignores the fact that provincial boundaries really aren't cultural boundaries, and it simply doesn't distribute well.
rather, i might suggest creating new categories.
1) western bc
2) vancouver / lower mainland
3) eastern bc / rural alberta / rural saskatchewan / rural manitoba
4) calgary-edmonton-regina-saskatoon-winnipeg [or maybe even cut that up a little]
5) northern ontario
6) southern & eastern rural ontario
7) southern & eastern urban ontario
8) western quebec [including gatineau & montreal]
9) eastern/southern quebec
10) maritimes
same number of categories, actually. but, it would increase accuracy dramatically.
Rachelle F.
I am staying with the NDP until the very end. Trudeau is basically the same thing as Harper, especially after it came to light that his manager was in bed with big oil.
As for the strategic voting, nobody will tell me how to vote. I am a woman who knows her mind, and there is not a chance that I will compromise my principles and vote for a leader who also supports Bill C-51, oil companies, TPP and Keyston XL Pipeline (Justin Trudeau).
The media is no longer giving Tom any airtime, they are clearly in support of Trudeau.
Vote NDP for real change.
deathtokoalas
i’m not sure this is the right place for this, but if you’re voting against oil you might want to consider voting for the greens. the unions are very invested in the east-west pipeline. and the ndp platform is built around the idea of taxing oil to pay for services.
i wish the liberals were a bit less gung-ho on the tar sands. but, they seem to have their head around the idea of transition a little bit better. the ndp aren’t talking about putting billions down on transition infrastructure.
in the end, we’re going to be talking in theoreticals because only one party can govern. but the reality is that neither party is going to bite the oil industry. and, in that context, i’d rather put my vote towards building infrastructure that can replace the carbon economy, and then worry about shutting down the export market once we have that in place.
but, we’re going to have to fight the pipelines in court. all three parties support one pipeline or the other.
it’s just that you don’t tax oil to pay for services if you’re serious about reducing carbon. that puts you in a fiscal position where you’re reliant on oil revenue. which is the situation we’re in now. it’s just this huge contradiction. and, if you watched the debates, the argument from both the liberals and ndp is that the conservatives weren’t building the pipeline fast enough – and how they would both do more to build the pipelines faster. it’s cynical, but it may be the case that an environmentalist might want to vote conservative, because at least we can count on them mismanaging the whole thing to the point that nothing gets accomplished.
there’s not a good option here. there’s the greens. but, i mean, look at where they’re polling.
and, it’s kind of the same thing with the tpp. at least we all expect the liberals to support the tpp – they support most trade agreements. but, then we had the ndp initially come out in support of it, and then flip on it in ways that allow them to flip back. i mean, they’re arguing about supply management. the supply management part really doesn’t seem that bad. i wouldn’t expect mulcair to reject the deal on a 3% market access to dairy products, and i think he’s asking a lot from people to believe him on that point. there was a time when the ndp would argue against the chapter 11 style clauses – the investor rights agreements. that was the basis of opposition to it for decades. but, you won’t hear mulcair criticize this. and, the sum of it makes me skeptical about whether he’s actually opposed to it. i would expect the ndp to support the tpp. i see every reason to think the greens are legitimately opposed to it. but, again – look at the polls.
it’s something that seems like it should be an issue, but the ndp is not taking the positions you would expect them to take. and it’s maybe not such a good idea to vote for them on phantom projections that they’re not actually articulating.
and, this is the problem they’ve created with so many people on the left. i’m to the left of both the liberals and the ndp. i’m to the left of the greens, even. but, in an attempt to park themselves in the centre, they’ve negated all the reasons i may have seen them as preferable to the liberals. nor have the liberals really steered that far away from where they normally are; there’s nothing in their platform that i wouldn’t have expected from a dion or even a martin government. but, in comparison, it just seems a lot more progressive in comparison – without really being particularly progressive.
people are going to look back at what mulcair has done here as a textbook case of what not to do. but, it’s ironic. because he’s following what people would claim is conventional wisdom – position yourself in the centre.
what we’re learning is that the centre isn’t where the pundits have placed it. it’s somewhere well to the left.
i do hope the ndp right themselves. but, they’re going to need a change of leadership that is willing to abide by their own conventions before i’m willing to again take them seriously as a more progressive alternative to the liberals.
the truth is trudeau’s got a gift here. and i hope he doesn’t blow the opportunity.
www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/marginally-significant-narrowing-of-liberal-lead/
--
Cre47
EKOS has to be the most inconsistent pollster so far this campaign (or maybe tied with Mainstreet). Everybody follows the same trend meaning the gap increases, but EKOS goes with those wild fluctuations. I’m starting to wonder if the IVR method is garbage. All the IVR pollsters have those wild fluctuations throughout the campaign, while the online and telephone pollsters have been more consistent especially Ipsos, Nanos and Leger.
deathtokoalas
what i’ve noticed is that the only thing that seriously correlates with the conservatives is the undecideds. when undecideds go up, the sample size decreases and the conservatives go up. when the undecideds go down, the sample size increases and the conservatives go down. what that means is that a lot of the fluctuations you’re seeing in a lot of the results is misleading – the conservatives have been pretty much flat at 30 (+/- a reasonable error) for months, whereas undecideds have been wavering all over the place between the ndp and the liberals, and increasingly choosing the liberals the last few weeks. when you see that conservatives at 35 over ivr, what that almost always really means is they’re around 30 amongst decideds, but the undecideds are at like 15 or something.
i do think that the ivr has something to do with that, in the sense that i think it’s more accurate at determining undecideds (because you don’t have agents pushing for an answer), but less clear about soft votes. so, you get this different kind of measurement.
you’re not really seeing much of a difference here with nanos, outside the margins. and, a 33-33 national tie really isn’t a close race, if the liberals are at 45% in ontario. but, i think it’s the answer to the volatility.
the correction i would suggest would be for ivr pollsters to be explicit about undecideds. mainstreet does this, and it’s usually pretty illuminating. translating, ekos would have:
liberals: 30.8
conservatives: 30.0
ndp: 21.0
undecideds: 8.1
and, while that may seem to be even less consistent, what it’s suggesting is simply something we already know: the conservatives are basically flat at 30, and the swing on the left is pretty weak in terms of party loyalty. of course, keeping in mind caveats about small sample sizes, large regional margins and the volatility of daily polling due to it.
it may seem weird that i’m not doing that with the phones, but what i’m saying is that what this method seems to do is really understand real undecideds as a distinct category, rather than as something to distribute proportional to the decideds, the way that phones tend to. it’s the difference between an agent prodding and not. although, ekos doesn’t have the high undecideds the way mainstreet does (although i still don’t know what “invalid response” means, and the two sum roughly to what mainstreet gets in the undecideds.). maybe it’s the blended sample, i don’t know. i just know it’s the only thing that really seems correlated with conservative numbers.
I am staying with the NDP until the very end. Trudeau is basically the same thing as Harper, especially after it came to light that his manager was in bed with big oil.
As for the strategic voting, nobody will tell me how to vote. I am a woman who knows her mind, and there is not a chance that I will compromise my principles and vote for a leader who also supports Bill C-51, oil companies, TPP and Keyston XL Pipeline (Justin Trudeau).
The media is no longer giving Tom any airtime, they are clearly in support of Trudeau.
Vote NDP for real change.
deathtokoalas
i’m not sure this is the right place for this, but if you’re voting against oil you might want to consider voting for the greens. the unions are very invested in the east-west pipeline. and the ndp platform is built around the idea of taxing oil to pay for services.
i wish the liberals were a bit less gung-ho on the tar sands. but, they seem to have their head around the idea of transition a little bit better. the ndp aren’t talking about putting billions down on transition infrastructure.
in the end, we’re going to be talking in theoreticals because only one party can govern. but the reality is that neither party is going to bite the oil industry. and, in that context, i’d rather put my vote towards building infrastructure that can replace the carbon economy, and then worry about shutting down the export market once we have that in place.
but, we’re going to have to fight the pipelines in court. all three parties support one pipeline or the other.
it’s just that you don’t tax oil to pay for services if you’re serious about reducing carbon. that puts you in a fiscal position where you’re reliant on oil revenue. which is the situation we’re in now. it’s just this huge contradiction. and, if you watched the debates, the argument from both the liberals and ndp is that the conservatives weren’t building the pipeline fast enough – and how they would both do more to build the pipelines faster. it’s cynical, but it may be the case that an environmentalist might want to vote conservative, because at least we can count on them mismanaging the whole thing to the point that nothing gets accomplished.
there’s not a good option here. there’s the greens. but, i mean, look at where they’re polling.
and, it’s kind of the same thing with the tpp. at least we all expect the liberals to support the tpp – they support most trade agreements. but, then we had the ndp initially come out in support of it, and then flip on it in ways that allow them to flip back. i mean, they’re arguing about supply management. the supply management part really doesn’t seem that bad. i wouldn’t expect mulcair to reject the deal on a 3% market access to dairy products, and i think he’s asking a lot from people to believe him on that point. there was a time when the ndp would argue against the chapter 11 style clauses – the investor rights agreements. that was the basis of opposition to it for decades. but, you won’t hear mulcair criticize this. and, the sum of it makes me skeptical about whether he’s actually opposed to it. i would expect the ndp to support the tpp. i see every reason to think the greens are legitimately opposed to it. but, again – look at the polls.
it’s something that seems like it should be an issue, but the ndp is not taking the positions you would expect them to take. and it’s maybe not such a good idea to vote for them on phantom projections that they’re not actually articulating.
and, this is the problem they’ve created with so many people on the left. i’m to the left of both the liberals and the ndp. i’m to the left of the greens, even. but, in an attempt to park themselves in the centre, they’ve negated all the reasons i may have seen them as preferable to the liberals. nor have the liberals really steered that far away from where they normally are; there’s nothing in their platform that i wouldn’t have expected from a dion or even a martin government. but, in comparison, it just seems a lot more progressive in comparison – without really being particularly progressive.
people are going to look back at what mulcair has done here as a textbook case of what not to do. but, it’s ironic. because he’s following what people would claim is conventional wisdom – position yourself in the centre.
what we’re learning is that the centre isn’t where the pundits have placed it. it’s somewhere well to the left.
i do hope the ndp right themselves. but, they’re going to need a change of leadership that is willing to abide by their own conventions before i’m willing to again take them seriously as a more progressive alternative to the liberals.
the truth is trudeau’s got a gift here. and i hope he doesn’t blow the opportunity.
www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/marginally-significant-narrowing-of-liberal-lead/
--
Cre47
EKOS has to be the most inconsistent pollster so far this campaign (or maybe tied with Mainstreet). Everybody follows the same trend meaning the gap increases, but EKOS goes with those wild fluctuations. I’m starting to wonder if the IVR method is garbage. All the IVR pollsters have those wild fluctuations throughout the campaign, while the online and telephone pollsters have been more consistent especially Ipsos, Nanos and Leger.
deathtokoalas
what i’ve noticed is that the only thing that seriously correlates with the conservatives is the undecideds. when undecideds go up, the sample size decreases and the conservatives go up. when the undecideds go down, the sample size increases and the conservatives go down. what that means is that a lot of the fluctuations you’re seeing in a lot of the results is misleading – the conservatives have been pretty much flat at 30 (+/- a reasonable error) for months, whereas undecideds have been wavering all over the place between the ndp and the liberals, and increasingly choosing the liberals the last few weeks. when you see that conservatives at 35 over ivr, what that almost always really means is they’re around 30 amongst decideds, but the undecideds are at like 15 or something.
i do think that the ivr has something to do with that, in the sense that i think it’s more accurate at determining undecideds (because you don’t have agents pushing for an answer), but less clear about soft votes. so, you get this different kind of measurement.
you’re not really seeing much of a difference here with nanos, outside the margins. and, a 33-33 national tie really isn’t a close race, if the liberals are at 45% in ontario. but, i think it’s the answer to the volatility.
the correction i would suggest would be for ivr pollsters to be explicit about undecideds. mainstreet does this, and it’s usually pretty illuminating. translating, ekos would have:
liberals: 30.8
conservatives: 30.0
ndp: 21.0
undecideds: 8.1
and, while that may seem to be even less consistent, what it’s suggesting is simply something we already know: the conservatives are basically flat at 30, and the swing on the left is pretty weak in terms of party loyalty. of course, keeping in mind caveats about small sample sizes, large regional margins and the volatility of daily polling due to it.
it may seem weird that i’m not doing that with the phones, but what i’m saying is that what this method seems to do is really understand real undecideds as a distinct category, rather than as something to distribute proportional to the decideds, the way that phones tend to. it’s the difference between an agent prodding and not. although, ekos doesn’t have the high undecideds the way mainstreet does (although i still don’t know what “invalid response” means, and the two sum roughly to what mainstreet gets in the undecideds.). maybe it’s the blended sample, i don’t know. i just know it’s the only thing that really seems correlated with conservative numbers.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Dr. Grand
Anyone know if those regions up for possible liberal win are actually Harper's own seat?
jessica murray
the riding trackers are using a very poor model. direct polling would be useful.
they use uniform proportional swing. that is foolish, in alberta - and why they got the last few elections so wrong. they should use proportional proportional swing.
i would estimate that harper is running around 45, which means he is vulnerable to a strong strategic campaign, but will probably win.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-alberta-calgary-petty-1.3269499
Anyone know if those regions up for possible liberal win are actually Harper's own seat?
jessica murray
the riding trackers are using a very poor model. direct polling would be useful.
they use uniform proportional swing. that is foolish, in alberta - and why they got the last few elections so wrong. they should use proportional proportional swing.
i would estimate that harper is running around 45, which means he is vulnerable to a strong strategic campaign, but will probably win.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-alberta-calgary-petty-1.3269499
again: we need some polling.
i suspect that even harper & kenney are only running the mid to high 40s right now.
there was a mainstreet poll released last night that put the conservative vote in edmonton centre down 40%, as i have been proposing. but, i would have suggested the liberals were leading. it turns out the ndp were the biggest beneficiary.
the conservative vote is stable, so you can do the math i'm doing with a non-uniform proportional swing. but, the liberal & ndp votes are all over the place, so we need direct riding polls to figure out where they are. don't trust the models on this.
i would guess that there are at least ten ridings in alberta in play right now.
sorry, that was edmonton mill woods.
well, it was...
it was both.
gah. no coffee.
if you look up the mainstreet polls released last night, you'll see what i mean about the 40% cut v. the 20% cut.
just get some riding polls out. all of calgary. all of edmonton.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-alberta-calgary-petty-1.3269499
hahaiquit
millwoods is mostly Muslim, Stepehn Harper don't stand a chance, even here in mostly conservative St, Albert have yet to see any support for Harper, it liberal orange wave
jessica murray
that's a nice excuse, but the numbers in edmonton centre better fit my model, as well. & i believe st. albert is the one where rathberger is splitting the vote so it's outside of the argument.
harper won milllwoods last time with over 60%. the models had them down 20% at 45%. they are actually down 40% at 36%.
that's a big drop. and the models completely missed it. it's hardly due solely to muslim immigration over the last four years. but keep digging your grave on that, if you must.
there is no way to make sense of the numbers other than to conclude that virtually the entire cities of edmonton and calgary are in play. there's only so much time left to organize and make sure the vote doesn't get split.
it would be an amazing victory to throw out kenney or harper, or both.
i suspect that even harper & kenney are only running the mid to high 40s right now.
there was a mainstreet poll released last night that put the conservative vote in edmonton centre down 40%, as i have been proposing. but, i would have suggested the liberals were leading. it turns out the ndp were the biggest beneficiary.
the conservative vote is stable, so you can do the math i'm doing with a non-uniform proportional swing. but, the liberal & ndp votes are all over the place, so we need direct riding polls to figure out where they are. don't trust the models on this.
i would guess that there are at least ten ridings in alberta in play right now.
sorry, that was edmonton mill woods.
well, it was...
it was both.
gah. no coffee.
if you look up the mainstreet polls released last night, you'll see what i mean about the 40% cut v. the 20% cut.
just get some riding polls out. all of calgary. all of edmonton.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-alberta-calgary-petty-1.3269499
hahaiquit
millwoods is mostly Muslim, Stepehn Harper don't stand a chance, even here in mostly conservative St, Albert have yet to see any support for Harper, it liberal orange wave
jessica murray
that's a nice excuse, but the numbers in edmonton centre better fit my model, as well. & i believe st. albert is the one where rathberger is splitting the vote so it's outside of the argument.
harper won milllwoods last time with over 60%. the models had them down 20% at 45%. they are actually down 40% at 36%.
that's a big drop. and the models completely missed it. it's hardly due solely to muslim immigration over the last four years. but keep digging your grave on that, if you must.
there is no way to make sense of the numbers other than to conclude that virtually the entire cities of edmonton and calgary are in play. there's only so much time left to organize and make sure the vote doesn't get split.
it would be an amazing victory to throw out kenney or harper, or both.
taliban jason!
i kid. but, he must think people have short memories. or can't figure out which hand is doing what.
ipolitics.ca/2015/10/14/away-from-spotlight-of-national-campaign-jason-kenney-runs-another/
i kid. but, he must think people have short memories. or can't figure out which hand is doing what.
ipolitics.ca/2015/10/14/away-from-spotlight-of-national-campaign-jason-kenney-runs-another/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)