The release date of this ill-fated survey was supposed to be Monday. In fact though it appeared Sunday evening, ignominiously, on the National Post/Canwest website. Kudos to Don Martin for stepping on the story in his Friday column and thus ruining Canwest's scoop. And kudos to everyone who wrote about it over the weekend. I think this probably did force Canwest's hand towards a Sunday reveal and helped to lessen the story's impact yesterday morning.
12 comments:
Looks like not everyone got the memo.
http://bit.ly/MMgFd
You should write something scathing about Ipsos-Reid, BCL and get crazy ol' John Wright to start acting out in the comments.
Polls are like a cancer to the democratic system - they may or may not be truly reflective of the true intent of the people - and serve to lead the electorate, like sheep, to the party or person they suggest is he "front runner".
Sure - we like them when they support our party or our candidate, but too often they serve to distort rather than clarify.
Im going to hold you to that when the tables are turned Rob.
Jon.. my conservatives allegedly have an 11 point lead. No post on my blog. And, as indicated above, no gloating.. I think BCL is right, the poll is wrong, and there's no point making more of it.. so, unless you're under the mistaken belief that I'm a Liberal supporter (some blue bloggers have suggested same), you can go ahead and hold me to it :)
Lol, no problem Rob. Wasn't that 11 point lead eclipsed to a 1 point deficit later that day?
I'm just saying...
Exactly.. hence my comment.
There has to be a poll related drinking game out there. Summer's not over yet. ;)
I just spent a few minutes looking for the article where I read it this morning, but can't locate it now. If I find it, I'll post it.
What bugs me most about Ipsos Reid is the way they defend their poll. The article I saw discussed the fact that they were defending the results.
They did NOT defend their poll by talking about the objective nature of the questions, their formula for determining normalizing the results, the breadth of their polling data across the nation, etc. You know, factors one would logically assume are relevant to accurate polling.
Instead, they defended it by sighting the poll results! The quote was something along the lines that Ignatieff had not defined himself sufficiently (according to their poll). Huh? So the logic is "Our poll results - which happen to fly in the face of every other poll in the past 2 months - are accurate because, well, the poll findings show the results are logical."
Got it. I'll try that if I get pulled over for speeding.
"Well, you see, Officer, I couldn't be speeding because I was in the car, and from what I can tell, I was barely moving. My hair isn't even tussled, which it clearly would be if I were really going that fast. My assessment of the situation has to be correct. I WAS NOT SPEEDING!"
We'll see how that works out.
Oh, I feel silly. It's actually in your article link. I just missed it when I glanced at it again. Here's the relevant comment:
"Darrell Bricker, the Ipsos-Reid pollster who conducted the poll showing the huge Tory lead, defended his numbers yesterday, saying the Liberals are lacking momentum, in part because Mr. Ignatieff is a 'cipher.' Canadians don't know him or his policies."
Darrell knows this because his out of line poll results tell him so. What credentials does one actually have to possess to conduct a poll? Is logic included in the position description anywhere? And actually, Darrell, expertise at circular logic doesn't count.
Liberals are lacking momentum, in part because Mr. Ignatieff is a 'cipher.' Canadians don't know him or his policies
Does anyone know if in fact, Ipsos-Reid surveyed for that information?
Oh, why would we Ti-Guy. It's all part of the magical "analysis" that accompanies the skewed poll ;).
Post a Comment