Showing posts with label political polls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political polls. Show all posts

22 September 2011

Some old habits must die really hard: Telly edition #nlpoli #nlvotes

In the last couple of days of the 1989 election, the Telegram featured a set of poll results done by a local company. 

The poll showed Tom Rideout’s Tories in front of the Clyde Wells Liberals by quite a margin.

Small problem of accuracy:  the Telegram didn’t mention that the polling firm was also the PC party pollster.

The company’s name was Omnifacts.

The Liberals issued a news release using their own rolling poll results that turned out to be way closer to the result than the Tory one. The title on the release was “Partisan polls should be identified”.

A version of the story turned up in a couple of Claire Hoy books and in both accounts Hoy’s supposed Liberal Party insider is someone who evidently didn’t understand how the Liberals were conducting their polls or what happened.  If the Liberals made up the numbers, as Hoy’s uninformed informant claimed, then they got the results pretty close to accurate.

Way more accurate say, than any given CRA poll over the past five years.  The Liberal poll showed the Libs on top by 3.5%.  In the end the popular vote was almost dead even, with the Tories slightly on top.  CRA missed the 2007 election by a country mile.

Anyway…

Fast forward 21 years and the latest iteration of the same firm – MQO or Market Quest Omnifacts – released another political poll this week.

In the Telegram story on page three of the Wednesday edition, the story starts out by referring to an “independent poll”.

That’s an interesting word choice.

MQO is part of a related group of companies that goes under the business name M5.

As Nalcor confirmed again for SRBP on Wednesday, the M5 Group is the agency of record for the provincial government’s energy corporation.

In effect, that would make MQO Nalcor’s pollster.

When asked by SRBP if MQO was doing work for the Tory Party or the provincial government or Nalcor, an MQO spokesperson said that “[w]hether or not the company currently has projects in play with the organizations you mentioned, I’m unaware.  It’s not something that MQO’s researcher’s would confirm for me due to client confidentiality.  In fact, the same is true for the entire group of m5 companies.”

 

- srbp -

20 September 2011

New Poll. New Result #nlpoli

Quick.

Where’s Kathy Dunderdale today?

A new poll by advertising agency M5’s opinion research firm will give you a clue.

The poll replicates the actual numbers for CRA’s August omnibus when both are adjusted to remove the distortion of reporting voter choice as a percentage od decideds.

The MarketQuest Omnifacts poll showed the provincial Conservatives with 42% of respondents, the New Democrats at 23% and the Liberals at 145 with the undecideds at 20%.

The margin of error was plus or minus 4.9%, 19 times out of 20.

The CRA corrected numbers were 40 Tory, 18 Dipper,  and 16 Grit with 26% undecided.

Run that through the Amazing SRBP Vote-a-matic and you get a possible seat result of:

  • PC:  38
  • Libs: 4 to 7
  • NDP:  3 to 6

So contrary to what Kathy “New Energy” Dunderdale said on Day One of the campaign, the polling shows the Tories will lose seats.  The question is more one of where they’ll lose them and to whom.

if you want an idea, consider that on the basic math of it the Tories have gone from 70% of votes cast to 53% of decided voters.  Bear with this for a second and switch back to using the numbers everyone else is using.

That’s a drop of 17 points since the last general election.

If you look at the seats the Tories won by a margin of 17% or less in 2007, this is what you get:

  • Lake Melville
  • Bellevue
  • Labrador West
  • Bay of Islands
  • Torngat Mountains
  • Humber Valley
  • Isles of Notre Dame

On the face of that list right now, your humble e-scribbler would add an extra New Democrat in Labrador West to a future House of Assembly with the other seats being ones where the Liberals are historically strong and would likely pick up.

That would give you 10 Liberal seats total and that’s outside the Vote-a-matic forecast range. Just remember that this is a highly inexact subject.  What you can take away from it are places to look for further signs or information. And after all, when the poll results have a variation of five percent give or take, you are really not dealing with scalpel-like precision anyways.

For those who want to quibble, too, that this result would show the Liberals gaining more seats with fewer votes than the New Democrats, you need to appreciate that this set of observations on seats is based on taking polling and applying it against history, against what happened before.

Add to that the concept of vote efficiency and how it works in the current system.

The best example to use is the 1989 general election.  The Tories got more votes, but the Liberals took 34 seats on election night.  The Tories, for example, tend to show very well in polls.  They rack up tons of support in districts in St. John’s but once they’ve gotten enough votes to win the seat every one after that is a waste.

Well, it’s a waste from the standpoint that they didn’t need it to win.

Meanwhile over in another district – most likely off the northeast Avalon – the Tories are starving for votes.  The Liberal vote is distributed such that lots of votes don’t get wasted racking up margins beyond what you need to win.

Same thing applies, essentially, for the NDP.  They’ve got a couple or three pockets of strong support. It’s been enough to win two seats, historically.  And that’s about it.

Historically, you’d translate those polling numbers out and get a result in which the Tories could drop seven seats to the other two parties.

You likely won’t see this from the conventional media, but then again, the conventional media can’t get much beyond the superficial horse-race commentary.

All you can do, dear reader, is take it all in,  weigh it out and make up your own mind.

Oh yes. 

And notice where Kathy Dunderdale is today.

Labrador.

- srbp -

06 September 2011

What you can see at the horse race…

Horse race polls are the heights of political journalism* in some circles despite the fact they tell very little about what is happening in voters’ heads.

But since this is all there is, let’s look at the latest Corporate Research Associates poll and see what it tells us.

The provincial Conservatives are at 40% of respondents down from 44% in May.  The New Democrats are at 18%, up from 15% and the Liberals remain at 16%.  Undecideds are up to 26% from 23% in May.

The Liberals and NDP have swapped places but all of the changes are well within the polls horrendous margin of error of plus or minus 4.9%.

For those unfamiliar with the numbers, what you just got was the CRA numbers adjusted as a percentage of poll respondents, not as the very misleading percentage of decideds that CRA uses.

Let’s try some observations:

  • All that Tory poll goosing – unprecedented in volume and timed to match CRA’s polling exactly – was a complete waste of time.
  • You can also put the jack boots to any suggestion that the NDP had a Jack Boost and are on their way to replacing the Liberals as the official opposition. The Dipper torque machine will be in hyper drive but this is really nothing to write home about…yet.  The local NDP still have not produced the kinds of polling numbers you’d need to see in order to confirm any switching to the Orange as the leading opposition party.
  • The Liberals experienced no change despite having a new leader for the entire polling period and attracting consistent news coverage for a week or so beforehand.  This poll should be a massive wake-up call for them. The only question at this point is whether or not they will hit the snooze button.

Now let’s try something a bit more complicated.

Even if you accept CRA polls, we know that there’s been a fairly steady slide away from the Tories for most of past 18 months.  Since Danny left, the slide stopped, reversed course and carried on downward again. 

We also know that CRA polling seems to pick up about 15 to 20 percentage points for the Tories that doesn’t show up at the polls.  Their Liberal and NDP numbers seem to be spot on or close enough for government work.

So here’s where the fun can start.  Shave 15 to 20 points off the stated Conservative number in the adjusted CRA poll results and you start to see Tory support down around 25% in May and 20% in August.

You can tell the Conservatives are edgy because of the orgy of politicking with public money they’ve all been doing.  Kathy Dunderdale has been campaigning already in areas where the Tories are perceived as being weak, namely the Burin Peninsula and central Newfoundland.  The Tories don’t have a lock on things in several places in the province and they know it.

So just for the heck of it, let’s imagine what might happen if the CRA results we see in August are pretty much what turns out in October.

Here’s one scenario run through an amazing, colossal supercomputing vote-a-tron machine kept hidden at a secret location, and offered here purely for entertainment purposes.

Using these most recent, corrected CRA results, you could still have the Tories forming a comfortable majority of more than 34 seats and as many as 37.  The Liberals would pick up seven or eight and the NDP could win as many as three or four.

Bay of Islands, Humber Valley, Isles of Notre Dame and Torngat Mountains would swing Liberal in that scenario.  The NDP could pick up Burin-Placentia West and Labrador West.

There could be close races in Grand Falls/Windsor-Buchans, Lake Melville, Placentia and St. Mary’s, St. Barbe and St. John’s East.

There’s still a long way to go before polling day and lots can change between now and then.  Voters appear to be ripe for a significant change.  Too bad none of the parties are offering one.

Just remember:  in the scenario we just walked through, the number of people staying home rather than voting would be at a historic high level.  No political party in Newfoundland and Labrador could crow about that.

Horse race polls - as they are normally used -  are no fun.

But if you look beyond the normal, all sorts of amusing things suddenly appear.

- srbp -

Ya gotta chuckle update: CBC’s lede is classic:

The governing Tories are holding a strong lead heading into October's election, while the NDP is challenging the Liberals for second place, a new poll shows.

Gal-o-war is way out in front and Townie Pride is nose and nose with Western Boy for second.

Total crap, of course.

Like this line later on that adds more turds to the total crap offered up front:

The fact that the NDP, not the Liberals, are in second place appears to set the stage for a competition for the Opposition.

That would be true if it wasn’t for the fact that it is false.  The only way such a proposition floats is if having the second biggest number of decided respondents to a CRA poll question actually translates into seats.

It doesn’t, but that obviously isn’t important.  Twenty-four is bigger than 22 so the NDP must be in second and challenging for official opposition status.

To make matters much worse, CBC misrepresents CRA’s quarterly advertising poll as a tracking poll.  It isn’t. Tracking polls are repeated much more frequently than once every three months.  They are averaged over time to give a moving picture of trends.  As that 1998 link to a CNN piece notes, a daily tracker will show fluctuations for specific events on a daily basis.  A weekly tracking poll will wipe out some of those daily blips to show longer trending.

CRA’s poll once every three months, with only three questions and with a margin of error that borders on the laughable tells you very little worthwhile. In 2007, CRA missed the vote result for the Conservatives by more than 20 percentage points.

- srbp -

24 July 2011

The Politics of Public Spending

Check the local media for the past week and you’ll see a sudden bunch of stories about the series of fire truck announcements provincial politicians of the Tory persuasion are making across the province.

Voice of the Cabinet Minister’s got one.

CBC’s got one.

Apparently there have been 19 announcements or unveilings of new fire trucks, with three more to come.

Municipal affairs minister Fairity O’Brien insists this is just routine stuff and has nothing to do with the provincial election coming in October.

Now ordinarily that would be such a nose puller of a line that one would involuntarily scream “bullshit” at the top of one’s lungs. 

Except that it is Fairity O’Brien. 

In fairitiness to Fairity, the guy who probably can’t remember the name of the  district St. Anthony is in and who bullshitted about planning and emergency response likely does not know that what he said about the fire truck and the truth are two different things.

So let’s just say he has a particularly virulent case of pinochiosis.

And that he’s more full of shite than usual on top of that, besides.

The announcements are all about politics and the upcoming election.  Even Fairity knows it.  As Geoff Meeker pointed out, here’s what Fairity said in his rambling answer to a question on an open line call-in show about the pork announcements.  After denying they were political, O’Brien said:

okay, so the question here in my district is, and I am only speaking for myself, do you want four more years of what you’ve just experienced in the last eight, or do you want to sit in the Opposition, or whatever it may be…

Now sending such an incredibly weak minister as O’Brien out to defend blatant pork-barrel politics is a sign of arrogance or cynicism.  Take your pick which it is; either way is bad.

O’Brien threat, however is one thing:  stupid.  Were Fairity and his colleagues to punish a district for voting for an opposition member, they would only be cutting their own political throats. Ask the Tories from the 1980s what that sort of political extortion netted them. 

Better yet, ask the Tories on the Great Northern Peninsula what even the mere perception of a political vendetta – the air ambulance decision – has netted them since the Tories lost the Straits and White Bay North by-election.

Not much of any good would come back the answer.

If Kathy Dunderdale wanted to send a stupid message to voters about patronage and voting, then she evidently picked the right fellow.  Fairity O’Brien did a fine job for her.

The Tories might have a bigger problem.  They might be faced with an electorate that knows full well this is all about pork and that realises they win pork no matter what way they vote. He who lives by the hock might wind up dying by the hock, so to speak.

All three political parties in the province will be running campaigns this fall built around delivering ever increasing amounts of pork in exchange for votes.  All three political parties agree that the provincial economy is going gangbusters.  So basically there’d be no legitimate reason to justify cutting back any spending.

The choice for voters this fall is not between fire trucks and no fire trucks. It is over how many fire trucks they want. 

Or a search and rescue centre.

Or an offshore supply base.

If you want to see naked electoral pork-barrelling in action, don’t look at fire trucks.

That’s old hat.  The first election fire truck announcements came in 2007.

Look instead at Bay Bulls.

The provincial and federal governments held separate announcements this week to give cash to the same project.  They held separate announcements so the provincial minister – in trouble in his own district – could get some free advertising for himself without the original tree hugging federal cabinet minister horning in.

Federal cash of $1.0 million for an expansion to Pennecon’s offshore supply base at Bay Bulls met the investment criteria for a provincial program.  Now the province will kick another half million.

$1.5 million in public money for a project estimated to cost no more than $2.1 million in total.

The job haul? 

Maybe 15. 

$100,000 per job.

The Tories hand out millions of taxpayer dollars to private businesses, often free of charge  The Newfoundland and Labrador NDP want to give Nova Scotians a free university education. The Liberals and the New Democrats want to give rich people in the province a break on their Hummer fill-ups and cut the cost of heating their luxury homes. Next thing you know the Liberals will resurrect that God-forsaken Stunnel idea just to mark themselves as the stupidest of stupid political parties.

But seriously: the Tories ran in 2007 on the argument that the Liberals would bankrupt the province by spending like drunken sailors.

They simply can’t make the argument any more. No one will believe it is possible to bankrupt the place after Fairity and his buddies spent the last four years spending on anything and everything imaginable.  And they really will find it hard to accept that money is tight if every political party in the province wants to double electricity rates in the province and double the public debt at the same time through this insane Muskrat Falls megadebt project.

Happy days are indeed here again, b’ys.

The only thing missing is the Fonz.

Now that you are squirming a bit, think about what might happen if at the same time people had three parties offering variations on a pork-flavoured platform, they also realised that neither of the leaders would be in their jobs four years from now.

And then wonder what all that might mean in an election where there is nothing to chose from and turn-out might drop by 20%, mostly consisting of Tory voters.

After all, that’s what happened in 2007.  Liberal vote collapsed.  Tory vote declined and the same New Democrats turned out in 2007 that had turned out in 2003.

It could give new meaning to the politics of public spending.

- srbp -

08 June 2011

The perils of polling stories

Not surprisingly, local media reports of Corporate Research Associates’ most recent quarterly poll got the news spectacularly wrong.

For example, the Telegram reported that “[s]upport for the provincial Conservatives has dropped to 57 per cent of those polled…”.

That’s not true.  The CRA release tells you that 57% of decided respondents to their poll felt that way.  There’s a difference between the people they polled and the people who they polled who made a choice about which party they’d support.

Meanwhile, CBC correctly described the party support numbers as being about decided respondents but for some reason they felt the need to add these gratuitous and unfounded editorial interpretations into their story:

The poll suggests the NDP could pose a considerable challenge to the Liberals in the Opposition benches, as the Oct. 11 general election draws closer.

Voters remain comparatively cool to Liberal Leader Yvonne Jones, who had an approval rating of 16 per cent, down from 18 per cent in March.

NDP Leader Lorraine Michael, by contrast, saw her approval jump from five per cent to 14 per cent.

So how does this happen? 

Well, for starters, CRA reports numbers as a share of decided responses, not all responses.    CRA doesn’t  explain what that means and reporters and editors typically wouldn’t know if it was fit to eat.  As a result the reports go off into the trees.  Not their fault, by the way.  The obligation is on CRA to accurately present its own information and ensure people know what it means.

Professional pollsters in the Untied States specifically reject this approach because it creates a false impression of what the poll found.  Not only does it artificially inflate some results, it actually discounts entirely a perfectly valid choice. 

People who are undecided have actually made a choice that, for the moment, doesn’t include one of the choices offered.  it’s like saying “none of the above.”

If you want to see this sort of misrepresentation in action, take a gander at the CBC report on CRA’s quarterly poll for New Brunswick.  Almost identical numbers to the ones in Newfoundland and Labrador.  Ruling Tories with a supposedly “commanding lead” of 56% and the Liberals and New Democrats in a “statistical tie” at 20% or thereabouts.

Small problem.

Look at the undecided number in New Brunswick and then look at the poll results as a share of all responses, not just “decided” voters.

Suddenly the Tories aren’t at 56%.

They are at 35%.

And the other two?  Somewhere in the low teens.

More people in New Brunswick are undecided than expressed a choice for the provincial Conservatives.  As for the opposition parties,  you’d have to use your imagination to see anything there other than a pair of parties that voters are barely noticing.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, a look at the unadulterated CRA numbers still tells you that the Tories are in front of the other parties.  You can also see a major league slide going on.  They were at 62% in August 2010, down to 51% in November, back up to 56% in February and now at 44%.

But the other parties?  As in New Brunswick, neither Yvonne nor Lorraine have captured any great attention yet.

But yes, sez you, there’s been this orange surge from eight percent up to 20%.

Yeah, not really.

For starters, the numbers are more like six percent to 15%. 

Still more than double, right?

Maybe.

Consider that the margin of error for this poll is 4.9%.  That means you can shift any number on the page up or down by five percent and still be within the range of possible numbers you’d get if you polled every eligible voter in the province.

So when you hear a reporter talk about a statistical tie or an NDP surge, odds are you have someone who learned everything they know about polls from being spun by masters of the torque.  Either that or they just read a badly distorted news release and relied on their own abilities to surmise what it means.  Doesn’t mean the reporter’s a boob:  just means the reporter doesn’t really understand what is going on.

But still, the NDP surged ahead, right?

Negative, again, there Ghost Rider.

The unadulterated CRA poll number puts the NDP at 15%, give or take five percentage points.  The Dipper machine could be at 10%, up a mere four percent from the February result. 

By the same token, they be at 19-ish%.  You can slide the Liberal or Conservative numbers up and down likewise and still be right. That’s what the margin of error means.  Plus when you consider that CRA results over the past seven years have been notoriously wide of the mark even without using the margin of error, you can pretty well bet these numbers are only vaguely close to what’s actually going on.

To give you a sense of what the results could be – take a breath for this one -  consider that at 20% of all respondents, either the Liberals or the NDP would be close to 30% of decideds in this recent survey. 

With the Tories at 44% of all respondents and 57% of decideds.

Not quite so commanding now, is it?  A pretty easy slide of another 10 percentage points, in other words, the kind of shifts we’ve already seen in the past six months, and the Tories could be looking at the shortest time in government since Confederation for any political party.

When you look at those sorts of possibilities,  it gets pretty clear to see that any  comments about the Tories having a a “commanding lead” are nothing more than total hogwash.  A relatively small shift in votes up or down for either of the parties and you’d be looking at Kathy Dunderdale potentially headed for the opposition benches come the fall.

Then there’s the second bit, namely the editorialising.  There’ll be a few New Democrats who’d love you to believe they are on the verge of a miracle here, but these numbers don’t support any such idea.  The reasons are pretty simple.

For starters, you can’t tell anything with one single point.  You need a couple of points to start making a trend. 

Beyond that, there is absolutely no sign of a gigantic shift of voter support to the NDP anywhere provincially, let alone in the metro region, despite federal electoral success over the past couple of years.  Provincial Conservatives are not happy with their Kathy but there’s a big difference between voting against Stephen Harper and voting against their local Tory candidate. 

That takes a major league piss-off of metro voters the sort you saw in the late 1980s.  St. John’s and the surrounding areas have gone anything but Tory for only about seven or eight years in the past decade.  In 1989, the Liberals took seven of eight St. John’s seats and 11 of 13 metro seats.  They did just about as good in 1993 and 1996 but after that things started to swing back toward the blue guys. Those sorts of changes don’t come easily;  it took the Tories a lot of misery after 1985 to fry townie voters to the point where they picked a bunch of red candidates in huge numbers. 

But let’s suppose for a second that we are seeing exactly what some people are claiming.  Slam the swings into the swing-o-meter and you won’t see any seats changing hands in St. John’s.  That’s because the Tories are still running so far ahead, it would take vote shifts of a magnitude out beyond what we have seen yet in order for the Tories to start sweating bullets about losing their base in town.

Come the fall you might be able to start musing about that sort of thing.  But that would be only if the NDP can somehow keep up momentum in a way they never have before, pull in way more money than they have and get tons of candidates and volunteers like they never have before.  They’d also have to run a provincial campaign using their provincial resources that rivals the federal one.  That’s a mighty tall order.

And even if the Dippers started to make some headway against the Tories in St. John’s, out beyond the overpass, the fights that will shape up would be between the Liberals and the Conservatives except in Labrador West.

Thing is voters don’t appear to be cool to Yvonne and potentially hot for Lorraine as the CBC writer imagined.  Voters haven’t warmed to either of the opposition parties and their leaders.  Lorraine’s at a amazing level of 11% while Yvonne’s at 13%. 

That could change and there’s plenty of room for change.

We just aren’t there yet.

Still, allowing for all the vagueness of these poll results, if you were Kathy Dunderdale, these poll results would be causing you a few sleepless nights in addition to the ones you are already feeling.

That’s the ongoing story in all this, just as it has been for the past six months or more.

- srbp -

07 June 2011

Dunderdale disapproval doubles; Tory vote drops to 44%

What a difference a federal election can make to provincial poll results.

According to the latest Angus-Reid poll,  43% of respondents are satisfied with Kathy Dunderdale’s performance as premier down from 55% in February and 67% for her predecessor last November.

Undecided remains at 35% of those polled.

But here’s the thing:  Those who said they were dissatisfied with Dunderdale’s performance went from 10% in February to 23%.

That trending is bad news for Danny Williams’ hand-picked replacement.

News for the Tories doesn’t get any better from Corporate Research Associates who conducted their quarterly omnibus poll from May 11 to May 28.  Margin of error for the poll is 4.9%. CRA polling seems to inflate Conservative vote in the province by anywhere up to 15 or 20 percentage points and deflate the undecided and will not vote categories by a comparable percentage.

Forty four percent (44%) of respondents said they would vote for Dunderdale’s provincial Conservatives if an election were held tomorrow. That’s down from 56% in February and 51% from last November.

“Undecided” (including refused to state and won’t vote) in the CRA poll reportedly held at 23%. It hit 31% in November just before Danny Williams announced his resignation.

So where did those ex-Tory voters go in the CRA poll?  Liberal support increased from 11% in November 2010 to 16% in the most recent poll.  The New Democrats picked up the most, going from 6% in February to 15% in May.  But here’s the thing:  before that they were hovering at 5%. 

Kathy Dunderdale and the Conservatives were already trending downward anyway.  Hitching her star to Stephen Harper didn’t seem to help the Premier’s standing with voters.  Meanwhile, the strong showing of the New Democrats in the metro St. John’s area federally seems to have been carried over in CRA’s polling.

While local media and the New Democrats will likely be torquing these results based primarily on CRA’s misleading way of reporting its research, whether the New Democrats can hang on to those numbers without help from Jack Layton remains to be seen.

What you can say is this:

  1. Kathy Dunderdale and the provincial Conservatives are in serious political trouble.  Voter support for her and her party is on the way down, continuing trends that go back about a year.
  2. At the very best, voters remain uneasy about Kathy Dunderdale. At the very worst, Angus-Reid numbers suggest there is growing opposition to her leadership. If the trending in that poll continues, Dunderdale’s satisfaction numbers will be 31% with 35% unsatisfied and another 35% unsure.
  3. At the same, voters are unsure about the opposition parties.  While the NDP seem to be having a small flourish, the numbers are nothing to write home about, especially after a prolonged period below 10%.  Meanwhile, the Liberals under Yvonne Jones have shown some modest progress over time. In CRA’s poll, both Michael and Jones are neck and neck which is pretty much where they have been for most intents and purposes for years.  Dunderdale is in a sad spot:  41% of respondents think she is the right leader for the province.

Bottom line:  People aren’t sure about Dunderdale and the Conservatives but they also aren’t sure about the other two leaders and their parties.

There’s a long time to October and any of a number of things could change the political landscape in the province dramatically one way or the other. 

- srbp -

07 March 2011

Dunderdale boosts Tory support from last Williams poll: government pollster (revised numbers) #nlpoli #cdnpoli

Corporate Research Associates issued a correction to its latest polling numbers for Newfoundland and Labrador on Monday and the result is truly startling.

The Conservatives under Kathy Dunderdale have the support of 56% of voters compared to 51% for the Tories under Danny Williams in November 2010.

Sure her personal popularity may be less than Danny’s but she’s managed to pull the Tories out of their downward slide in Danny’s last three months that took them from 61% in August to 51% in November.  Dunderdale’s started the Tories back on the path to the stars and without doing very much of anything for the past three months except fend off a weak challenge to her leadership by Brad Cabana.

Not surprisingly, the Conventional media are following along with CRA’s news release and their own conventional wisdom to make the poll numbers fit what they think the numbers should say.  They are saying that Dunderdale is not as strong as Danny but she is still pretty big.

But as absurd as it may seem, the CRA numbers really put Kathy ahead of her old patron.

According to CRA’s revised numbers, undecideds dropped from 31% to 23% in the three months or so Danny’s been gone.  The unfiltered, undistorted CRA numbers show Tory support went from 51% in November with Danny as leader to 56% with Kathy Dunderdale.

Both the change in party support for the Tories and the change in undecideds is outside the margin of error (4..9 percentage points)

“How could this be?” you are likely asking.

Call it the mother of all typos.

The original news release included this sentence:

Those with no stated preference included those who were undecided (18%), do not plan to vote (3%), or refuse to state a preference (18%).

That adds up to 39%.

The table at the end of the news release gave the figure as 23%.  Apparently that second 18% was only supposed to be two percent.

Not 18.

2.

Big difference.

It’s a bit of a head scratcher as to how someone could mistakenly type “18” instead of “2” and how the release could get out the door with such a glaring error.

Your humble e-scribbler took the figures in the text of the release in largest part since they were consistent, across the board with a similar poll done by NTV/Telelink in February.  Those are the figures used in an earlier post

Now what we are left with is a poll that mirrors Telelink in every way except in Conservative support and the level of undecided/no answer and will not votes.  The differences are hardly inconsequential. 

What this cock-up really should be is a reminder that CRA’s poll reporting does contain some rather glaring problems.  For instance, CRA routinely distorts the results of its polls by presenting only the results for decided voters. You can see the effect of that misrepresentation by charting the results as a share of all responses, not just the “decideds”. This chart is taken from post last December on CRA’s fourth quarter poll.

According to CRA’s version, the Conservative party’s support remains in the mid 70s. What doesn’t get noticed is that the “undecided” category has gone from the teens to 31% in November 2010.  Now it’s dropped again to 23% in the most recent poll.

You’ll also see in the middle of that chart another clue that something is seriously wrong with CRA’s polls.  That flat line in the middle would be a period of three consecutive quarterly polls where the difference in Tory support was apparently less than one percent. Those interested in a more detailed discussion can find it in an older post:  There’s a fairly lengthy post that discusses most of the major problems with CRA polling:  “How the Tories get 28% more votes thanks to CRA”..

For the first time in a long while, CBC has added a few questions to CRA’s quarterly polling.  Ostensibly they give new information, but essentially, CBC just gives a variation on the basic horse race questions. One of the CBC questions even repeats the same flawed question format of “mostly” and “completely” and equally extreme negative choices.  On other occasions, incidentally, CRA has asked a typical five point Likert scale (strong and moderate positives and negatives with a neutral) and reported the results as “completely” or “mostly” as appropriate. 

What is the difference, after all, between completely and mostly, compared to completely and somewhat?  think about it for a second and you’ll get the point.

What’s missing in all the questions is the sort of stuff that would give any indication of what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are concerned about.  What pollsters typically do is ask what issues are of concern to their respondents.  Then they might ask voters to rate party performance on each question.  Sometimes they might leave out the party support questions so as not to unduly influence the responses, but with or without it, one can get a much better sense of what potential voters are thinking.

Instead of some insight, one gets absurd responses.  For example, when asked whether Williams departure will influence party choice (the question itself is oddly worded, by the way), 34% said they were less likely to vote Conservative while 30% said they are more likely. 

Huh?

Exactly.

And don’t forget the Conservatives supposedly enjoy 73% voter support  - using CRA’s own method of reporting - with only 18% actually undecided in their party choice.

And as a last point, let’s just remember this basic point.  CRA polls eligible voters.  They don’t screen for usual voters or regular voters.  They just survey all eligible voters. That means you need to compare their poll results, including UND/DK/NA with the actual poll results for any given election.

In their Fall 2007 quarterly survey, CRA put the combined no answer/will not vote/undecided at a mere 18%. The actual result on polling day was 38%.  CRA’s quarterly polls typically show that the “will not vote” category is less than five percent.

-srbp-

Tories at 44.5%, UND at 39%: government pollster #nlpoli #cdnpoli

Double-down Update:

  • CRA's issued a correction that its UND category was 23% as shown in the table not 39% shown in the text.  That's one mother of a typo and therefore that's worth a whole new post, coming later.
  • CBC apparently piggybacked on this one and has some specific questions of its own coming later on Monday evening.  That would warrant a separate post on its own.
  • New post:  “Dunderdale boosts Tory support from last Williams poll

Original Post begins...

Support for the ruling provincial Conservatives under Kathy Dunderdale is at 44.5% compared to 61% last August under Danny Williams according to a Corporate Research Associates quarterly poll released on Monday.  The results match almost exactly with a recent NTV/Telelink poll that put support for the province’s Tories at 44.3%.

Undecided, including those who refused to answer and those who do not plan to vote is at 39%, up eight percentage points from CRA’s November 2010 poll.  NTV/Telelink reported 37.9% of its respondents didn’t know how they might vote, wouldn’t state a preference or indicated they would not vote.

And that’s where the real story is for these polling numbers.  According to CRA’s polls, support for the provincial Conservatives started to slide during the last three months of Danny Williams’ leadership.  His abrupt departure didn’t stop the slide.

What’s worse, the margin of error for this poll is 4.9%.  That means there is a possible variation in those numbers of almost 10 percentage points.  Given that the Tory and UND number is less than 10% is it possible that more people are undecided or won’t state a preference than are actually indicating they will vote for the provincial Conservatives.

There are problems with the way CRA presents its figures.  For example, they show party choice for decided voters.  This is highly misleading as can be seen in the party vote numbers. The obvious decline in Tory support vanishes completely because of the way CRA reports its figures.

Still, if you look at the numbers, understand what you are seeing, and can check them against a second set of figures like NTV/Telelink, the results can be dramatically different than what you will see reported by conventional media.

These poll results from two different firms don’t  mean the Tories will lose the next general election.  What they do show is an electorate which is sufficiently uncomfortable that they will not state a clear support for the ruling party.  The fall general election could be up for grabs, depending on what the Conservatives and the opposition parties do over the next three to seven months.

- srbp -

02 March 2011

35% unsure of Dunderdale

A new poll by VisionCritical/Angus Reid shows Kathy Dunderdale with the second highest approval rating of premiers across Canada. Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall topped the list at 63% approval, with 16% undecided

But look at the numbers in the wider context and you can see why the provincial government’s pollster was in the news this week lowering public expectations for his client. Don Mills told the Telegram that: “[Premier Kathy Dunderdale’s popularity is] not going to be 75 per cent, I wouldn’t think.” 

Mills’ polling firm was cluing up the quarterly survey when he made the comments. The VisionCritical/Angus Reid numbers give an indication of the numbers Mills was likely picking up.

Dunderdale’s got the highest reported undecided – 35% – of any Premier in the country. Dunderdale is slightly ahead of New Brunswick Conservative at 33% undecided.  His approval rating is also the third highest at 42%.

Dunderdale is also a long way from Danny Williams’ approval numbers.  In November 2010 he was at 67% and in February 2010 he had the approval of 80% of those surveyed.  Fully 78% approved of Williams and only 12% were unsure in November 2009.

That was an enormous drop for Williams and the trend is still downward for his hand-picked successor.

What’s more, VisionCritical/Angus Reid’s question is not a choice of one leader compared to others:  it merely measures people’s opinion about the premier himself or herself from people within their respective provinces. Mills’ polls ask respondents to chose the political party leader they would prefer to see as Premier.

- srbp -

28 February 2011

Provgov pollster seeds ground for bad news

Provincial government pollster Don Mills is in the Telegram on Monday getting people ready for yet a further decline in polling numbers for the province’s ruling Conservatives.

“[Premier Kathy Dunderdale’s popularity is] not going to be 75 per cent, I wouldn’t think,” he said. “To some extent, it will have nothing to do with Kathy Dunderdale at all. I think it’s just going to be people realizing that (Williams) was a pretty extraordinary personality that commanded support across party lines.”

As you can see, Mills wasn’t just contented to hint that the numbers would be down;  he also felt obliged to offer his opinion on the implications.  The basis for his opinion won’t ever be found in any of his polling numbers.  They are – like his seat projections in 2007 – based on something else.

Mills is talking about personality popularity – or even name recognition – but neither of those are directly connected to ballot results.  Danny Williams personal popularity soared after 2005 but in the 2007 general election, the Conservatives garnered the same share of eligible vote they had in 2003. 

A recent poll by NTV/Telelink puts the Conservatives under Kathy Dunderdale as the choice of  44% of eligible vote.  That continues a steady decline registered by Corporate Research over the third and fourth quarters of 2010.  If the implication of Mills’ comments are borne out, CRA’s poll that is just clueing up should confirm the NTV/Telelink numbers.

- srbp -

23 February 2011

Connies drop

So much for all those polls showing the Conservatives were on fire.

Ekos’ most recent poll puts the Connies at 32% with the Liberals at 27%. The pollsters at Ekos put it down to the usual pattern of Canadians getting queasy about the idea of a majority Conservative government.

 

- srbp -

17 February 2011

From 61% to 44% since August: NTV poll shows Tory support slides further

For those who have lived by the provincial government’s polling as proof of how popular the governing Conservatives have been, the most recent provincial public opinion polls offer no comfort.

An NTV/Telelink poll released Wednesday [link to NTV report] shows support for the governing provincial Conservatives is currently at 44.3% with 37.9% undecided.

NTV is reporting those figures as being not much different from the last provincial government poll in November, but that’s not the case.

A straight comparison – using the Telelink approach – shows that support for the province’s Tories is down from 51.8% in the CRA poll.  Undecideds in the Corporate Research Associates poll conducted last November stood at 31% on the party support question.

Danny Williams didn’t announce his resignation until the end of CRA’s polling period and it is unlikely his departure significantly changed the poll results.  in other words, undecideds in November increased despite the fact Williams was still the premier at the time CRA conducted the poll.

And in case you missed the point,  support for the province’s Tories has plummeted in the past six months from 61.8% to 44.3%. 

While CRA polling has some very serious credibility problems, Telelink has been notoriously more accurate by comparison.  Their September 2007 poll nailed the Conservative share of eligible voters smack on the money. CRA was 20 percentage points off.  For those counting, CRA was out by something like 32 percent, not the margin of error cited in the poll at the time.  Telelink also got within seven percentage points of the undecided/will not vote (31% polled versus 38) while CRA was basically OTL (18% polled versus 38% actual)

What’s going on?  You can get a good sense of this by looking at the undecideds. Over the past 20 years or so, local polls tend to see a change in “undecideds” when people are unhappy with the incumbent party. They may not be so disgruntled that they switch to the major opposition party;  they may not see the opposition as a viable alternative at that moment.

In this survey, NTV/Telelink did something CRA never does:  they probed the undecideds and asked them which way they might be leaning.  The Tory number climbed but the undecideds were still around 25% according to the NTV report.

That’s still pretty high and it cannot be very encouraging for the Tories.

In Newfoundland and Labrador politics, there are cadres of dedicated party voters.  They turn out and vote the same way pretty well every time.  But the biggest chunk of voters are swing voters.  They are not ideological or overly wrapped up in one party affiliation or another and they are the prize for any party wanting power. When polling in the province changes significantly, odds are the swing voters are swinging. [new sentence added for clarity]

For those who accept CRA polls, you’d have to be worried about the change that showed up last November. This most recent change happened under Danny, the supposedly invincible. he’s gone and the slide is still there. Now the decided party support for the Tories is down again by about 18 percentage points.

Now look at the vote results in the by-elections off the Avalon since 2007. In Humber West, Tory support dropped about 24%, the largest percentage since 2003.  The Liberal vote climbed by a comparable percentage for a combined swing of 45%. That’s in the heart of the Tories’ west coast base.

Remember Danny Williams’ comments right before the by-election about how good Tories have been to the entire west coast?  Yeah, well here’s the payback on that investment.  In the Straits, they rejected the Tory candidate altogether and the Tories retaliated or appear to have retaliated with the air ambulance move.  That couldn’t have helped their overall position on the peninsula.

And in case you are wondering, the swing in Humber West was larger than the 2011 swing in the Straits and St. Barbe that heralded the rise of Danny Williams.

Take Humber West as the example of a trend.  Even when the Tories win, it’s getting pretty clear that they are losing some of their voters.  Some may be core Tories who are getting getting complacent.  Some might be Tories who are just tired of the internal war with their federal cousins.  More likely, they are losing independent or swing voters owing to nothing more radical than fatigue. 

Now consider that in the face of this fairly obvious weakening of Tory support, their most recent decision is to play all-defence with virtually no change in the fundamental direction of the party.  Premier Kathy Dunderdale told reporters in Corner Brook that there’s no change in the overall make-up of her administration until sometime after the fall election.

A defensive game might win.

However, that strategy depends very much on what the Liberals do.  it smacks of the same sort of conventional wisdom slash complacency that led them to count on Danny being around for another one and then some.  Shit happens, as they say.

If the Tories can hold it together, keep a lid on internal fractures, avoid making any controversial decisions, spend like drunken sailors and run a Humber West-style hide ‘em if ya got ‘em campaign, they might  hang on to most of the seats they currently hold.  

That assumes, though, that the Liberals just stumble their way along as they did in 2007.  If the Liberals shift their direction just a bit a lot can change.  Solid local candidates, for example, can make local races competitive in districts outside the metro St. John’s region.  There are plenty of districts that went barely blue in 2007 and there are undoubtedly plenty of polls within districts that reverted – as in Terra Nova – to their former, Liberal voting patterns. It doesn’t take much to swing a poll or a district as the Tories and those familiar with the province’s long electoral history should know.

In the current political environment, small changes can produce disproportionate results. There’s more than enough time between now and October for one change or a combination of changes to produce the sort of political upheavals that happened in the last week of November and the first week of December last year.

2011 could be one of the most interesting political years in Newfoundland and Labrador history.

- srbp -

17 January 2011

Tory angst might be well founded

Conservatives across Newfoundland and Labrador seem to be in a bit of a tizzy. Danny Williams’ sudden departure has the caucus so spooked they are trying to engineer a backroom deal to avoid a leadership contest.

On some level you have to wonder why they might be so uptight.  After all, to casual observers they would appear to be guaranteed an easy victory in October’s general election with or without the Old Man.

But then you see things like an online poll at The Western Star:  “If you were a Danny Williams supporter, are you less likely to vote PC now?”

So far, 46% of respondents are saying yes, they are less likely to vote Tory. 15% say they are more likely to vote PC and the remainder  - 39% – answered “no”.

Even in the government’s own polls, Danny always ran way ahead of the party.  In the most recent government poll, though, support for the party dropped about 10 percentage points compared to a poll done three months earlier. That wasn’t good even when people thought Danny would still be around for the fall election.

Now that he’s gone, things will likely turn out very differently.  People who barely won their seats at the peak of supposed Danny-mania in 2007 might not have such an easy time of it in 2011.  They might need a boost, like say from a cabinet appointment, to try and counteract the loss of Danny Williams’ entire coat.

Stop and think about it for a second, though, and the long term trend of Danny running in front of his party’s support and the Western Star online poll are pointing in the same direction.  It would make sense that people who had voted Conservative in the recent past would now be thinking about shifting their vote.  They were Danny Tories, as it were, not committed Tories.

All that would lead explain why Conservatives in the province are a wee bit out of sorts these days. 

And if the number of soft Tory votes is actually close to the 46% the Star found, then politics over the next eight or 10 months is going to be way more interesting than anyone suspects right now.

- srbp -

02 December 2010

Williams approval plummets: Angus Reid poll

A new poll by Angus Reid shows public approval in Newfoundland and Labrador for  Danny Williams’ performance as premier fell from 80% in February 2010 to 67% in November.

That’s an interesting detail buried in the release from Angus Reid.  Most media outlets apparently have taken the company’s news release and not looked at the attached research report.

The release lede notes that Williams topped the list of all premiers with Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall coming second. The first sentence of the analysis section states that while impressive, “the overall approval rating for Williams in Newfoundland and Labrador is now 11 points lower than it was at the end of 2009.”

- srbp -

10 August 2010

A summer like no other: the labradore analysis

Take a gander at this analysis at labradore of the stunning blizzard of funding announcements from a single ministry in the Williams administration.

More than one third of all releases issued since June 1 have been from a single department and all involve hand-outs of government cash. The traditional ministry of pork – transportation – is in second place with 8% (23 releases).*

Now your humble e-scribbler has another perspective on the Summer of Love, Part Deux in the works, but in the meantime, labradore gives a couple of useful observations:

For two, a whole lot of little funding announcements, of a few thousands to tens of thousands of dollars at most, keeps the public mind dutifully associating Danny Williams-Government with the expenditure of money, in a wide variety of geographic locales, without the sticker shock of using roads, schools, or hospitals to generate happy headlines.

For three, there really isn’t anything of substance going on inside Danny Williams-Government that can be used to keep the flow of Happy News flowing in a pre-pre-election summer. Anything big and important that can be delayed until calendar year 2011, will be. That leaves the smaller stuff.

There will be plenty more small stuff next year - don’t be so foolish – but both those points are dead on the money. It is a perpetual campaign in Newfoundland and Labrador.  The politics never stops. Only the naive and Danny-lovers would have you believe otherwise.

- srbp -

*  Corrects from typo in original.

06 January 2010

Alberta poll in question

Ye, verily, lo and behold, good citizens:

There are problems with reports coming from Alberta about the Wild Rose party and polling.

Sounds very familiar.

One thing leaped out in particular and this had to do with the reliability of online surveys:

Unbeknownst to most Albertans – even many politically savvy ones and apparently to most political journalists, too – was the import of this statement.

First, this is an on-line survey, based on interviews with a group of Albertans, obviously interested in politics and quite possibly committed to a political party, who selected themselves for the job.

The advantage of on-line panels of this type is that they’re inexpensive to conduct. The disadvantage is that their results cannot be called scientific and they are not particularly credible.

Also unknown to most Albertans following this story is the fact that the phrase “margin of error is 3 per cent” is highly controversial in professional polling circles when applied to this kind of survey.

The implication is that the survey was based on sound scientific methodology and can be counted on to be accurate within a margin of 3 per cent.

The fact is the survey is based on the opinions of people who selected themselves to join the panel and answered questions on-line. In other words, this is not necessarily a particularly trustworthy poll.

That probably refers to issues like the ones raised in this businessweek.com article in 2008.

And it points out again why reporters need to ask more questions about polls and pollsters before they report the results.

Lie say this little gem from an American association of polling firms giving 20 questions journalists should ask about polls:

6. Are the results based on the answers of all the people interviewed?

One of the easiest ways to misrepresent the results of a poll is to report the answers of only a subgroup. For example, there is usually a substantial difference between the opinions of Democrats and Republicans on campaign-related matters. Reporting the opinions of only Democrats in a poll purported to be of all adults would substantially misrepresent the results.

Poll results based on Democrats must be identified as such and should be reported as representing only Democratic opinions.

Of course, reporting on just one subgroup can be exactly the right course. In polling on a primary contest, it is the opinions of those who can vote in the primary that count – not those who cannot vote in that contest. Primary polls should include only eligible primary voters.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, reporting poll results as a percentage of “decideds“ is “one of the easiest ways to misrepresent the results of a poll…”. Some people won’t be shocked by that nugget.

If you scroll down you’ll also find a good section that points out methodological problems with online poll results.

And that’s before people misread news reports that seemed to suggest Danny Williams scored a 70% approval rating with all Canadians surveyed by Angus Reid last fall during the local poll goosing month of November.

At some points, local news organizations will either stop reporting obviously unreliable poll results or hold off until they get answers to some tough questions from the people flogging the polling fodder.

-srbp-

03 September 2009

Two wrongs… and you get a news story

Both VOCM and the Telegram incorrectly reported the latest poll results from government sponsored polls on Thursday.

VOCM reported that the “latest numbers from Corporate Research Associates show Danny Williams and the PC's gaining strength, despite being almost halfway through their second term.”

The Telly reported that the “province’s decided voters are showing more support for the Progressive Conservative government…”.  The story is on page three of the Thursday edition but isn’t available online.

As a famous politician likes to say,  nothing could be further from the truth.

Both reported the numbers given in response to a question on which political party respondents would pick if an election were held tomorrow. 

The problem comes from the fact that the provincial government’s pollster – Corporate Research Associates – gives its results as a percentage of decided voters, not as a percentage of all people whose answers are included in the poll data.  The change in the number of undecideds can affect the relative share of decideds any one party has.

19 August 2009

Poll goosing: Can you say fire truck?

There are two bits of humour in the same post.

The first is this video of a child having some interesting trouble saying the words fire and truck together. 

It’s a wee bit predictable but still funny and cute.

Also predictable, funny and cute is the fact that the provincial government likes to announce and deliver fire trucks in a particular season of the year that just coincidentally is also the time the official provincial government pollster is on the go collecting his latest data for a government-sponsored poll.

Since 2007, the provincial government has consistently started announcing fire trucks with the bulk of the announcements coming just before and during Government Polling period.

July 11, 2007:  $108,000 dropped on the association representing firefighters.  Don’t forget that was also part of the pre-election Summer of Love spending frenzy.

August 9, 2007:  Government pollster Corporate Research Associates starts collecting data.

August 16, 2007:  A new fire truck for Conception Bay South,  “presented” by municipal affairs minister Jack Byrne with incumbents/candidates Terry French and Beth Marshall in tow.

August 16, 2007:  A news release listing off $1.7 million in emergency services spending, including a list of nine new fire trucks and other emergency vehicles for communities across the province.

August 17, 2007:  As if the announcement of the presentation on the 16th wasn’t enough, there’s a second news release on the fire truck in CBS. It includes three photos of people posing with the fire truck.

August 31, 2007:  CRA stops polling.

Other than one lone fire truck presentation in October, there’s no other fire truck activity in 2007.  By the way, that one in October was the presentation of a truck included in the August 16 release and it was presented in a town in the minister’s district.  He didn’t “present” any other trucks, at least with a news release going with it.

Skip ahead one year and you will find the next Fire Truck Season that – just by coincidence  - matches up to Government Polling Season.

July 15, 2008:  $130,000 in government cash for the firefighters association.

July 25, 2008:  New fire trucks for Badger and Whitbourne.

August 5, 2008:  New fire truck for St. Anthony

August 7, 2008:  New fire truck for Irishtown-Summerside.

Government pollster CRA polled from August 12 to 30, 2008.

There were three more vehicle presentations extending into October last year. Of course by the time the last one was done, the government pollster was getting ready to go back to the field in November for the last poll goosing foray of the year in November.  Lo and behold there was even the announcement of a new fire hall in that month, as well. 

Fire and polls really do go together.

The pattern has continued in 2009.

An announcement in January – covering a raft of new fire trucks -  in advance of the February poll goosing season and with plenty of time for the weekly newspapers to cover the stories.  Even more funding for the firefighters association in July 2009 and of course the August announcement. CRA’s been in the field since last week.

Now some of you might protest that these announcements don’t match up with polling time.

But if you think that you might be forgetting what no less an authority than the Premier himself said about the whole idea of poll-stacking when he was asked about it last year.   If he was going to poll goose, he’d be out there a week or two before polling started.

Oh, he knew exactly when CRA started polling, by the way.  Not exactly the sort of information you’d expect a busy Premier to have at his finger-tips.

Well, not unless he needed to be aware of it for some reason.

-srbp-

03 June 2009

NS election: Undecideds double in two weeks

The number of undecided voters in the Nova Scotia general election doubled in the second half of May compared to first half, according to two polls from Halifax-based Corporate Research Associates.

In a poll taken in early May only 17% of respondents were undecided or weren’t planning to vote.  In the second poll, 33% of respondents were undecided. 

The second poll covered a larger sample (834) than the first poll (627). The first poll was conducted from May 7 to May 16.  The second poll as conducted between May 18 and May 30.  CRA reports the margin of error for both polls as 3.9% for the first poll and 3.4% for the second, 19 times out of 20.

Support for the front running New Democrats dropped from 30.7% to 29.5%.  Liberal support dropped from 25.7% to 18.8% and Progressive Conservative support dropped from 23.2% to 17.4%.

Interpretation of the poll in conventional media relies on dealing only with decided voters. Thus, CBC concludes that “support for the NDP has risen sharply to 44 per cent from 37 per cent” while ignoring the change in undecideds.

There is no indication that Corporate Research Associates probes undecideds in the two polls, completed as part of CRA’s quarterly omnibus polling in Atlantic  Canada.

-srbp-

15 November 2008

You can press your thumbs as hard as you like...

What with the official government pollster in the field and what with a  video taken at the Provincial Conservative $500 a plate fundraiser circulating  (who paid for the video gig, guys?), don't believe for one second that it hasn't gone unnoticed among the thumb clickers on the Hill that the initial "Danny did it" spin on the Inco smelter story is pretty much dead.

It wouldn't be surprising to find that one entire office-load of Blackberries has been sent back  for replacement what with the buttons pressed through the casing from all the frantic texting that is surely going on.  It's not like they didn't organize one of the most intense pitcher plant deployments in over a year to try and forestall any possible slippage in the numbers collected by the official government pollster.

The pitcher plant story line got right down to Bill Rowe and the infamous Tony sharing their beliefs that had the entire Voisey's Bay deal from start to finish was, in point of fact, due entirely, solely, totally and utterly due to the singular  magnificence unprecedented on the planet of the guy who paid Bill Rowe's tab in Ottawa.

But no matter how hard they tried to drown it, the truth about Voisey's Bay surfaced and people acknowledged that the Voisey's Bay was a good thing and the Premier really had very little to do with it then or now.

Even Roger Grimes got in a few licks of his own in the process:

"It was a good deal for Newfoundland and Labrador from start to finish, regardless of what the Opposition was trying to say," he said.

"Mainly, Danny Williams [was] trying to suggest it was full of loopholes and so on, which has proven so far definitely not to be true," Grimes said.

Not true?

That's putting it mildly.

The better part of seven years after he first started talking about loopholes and problems neither Danny Williams nor his deputy nor anyone else has shown the loopholes, problems or other weak spots in the Voisey's Bay deal Danny Williams claimed were there.

That's because - evidently - they don't exist.

If they did, Danny Williams would produce them.

Ultimately, that is the giant bluff that wound up being called this week much to the chagrin of Bill, Tony and bunch of others. 

And all those thumb clickers, they discovered that no matter how hard you press those keys,  eventually the truth gets out. 

People understand that stuff you pay for that says you did a good job is nowhere near as persuasive or gratifying as having people - of their own accord - tell you that in hindsight you were right and they were wrong.

They can press your thumbs as hard as they like and you can't change that.

-srbp-