23 September 2008

Nanos: it's all in the methodology


That pretty much explains why Nanos Research numbers are typically just a bit different - and sometimes quite a bit different - from the ones coming from a majority of national pollsters.

Now mind you, this is not really a problem for ordinary mortals.

They aren't substituting extensive rationalizations of Gerry Ritz's appalling comments (They pay Connie hacks big bucks to apologize for Harper's crew;  we don't need it from CTV) for something like thoughtful, balanced coverage.

They aren't even pondering the bizarre universe in which The Star and National Post columnists share essentially the same view of the Liberals and apparently the same goal of slagging the party at every opportunity. We await Don Martin's new job editing Toronto's other other newspaper that at least knows it has nothing to offer anyone outside the GTA.

Their peculiar brand of tripe comes not from actually covering the campaign but from reading some dodgy polls, chatting with a few mates here and there to confirm previous opinions and then disengaging whatever is stored 'twixt the ears in order to bash out a few words for the rag that pays the bills.

Sadly, that's pretty much the trend for this federal election, one in which tuning in to CTV, the typical Canadian viewer likely wonders when Bill O'Reilly will be turning up to take Kate Wheeler's spot.

Those are the people who have a problem with Nik Nanos and his numbers.

The rest of us are just enjoying the show.