opinion-poll

Canadians on the federal parties

According to the latest Nanos Survey,

Party personality – Conservative Party: Let’s assume for a moment that each federal political party was a person. What one word would you use to describe the personality of each of the following political parties? [Open-ended] [Randomize parties].

Canada (n=925)

Untrustworthy: 14.4%
Conservative: 12.9%
Bad/Incompetent: 9.9%
Good/Good choice : 9.1%
Trustworthy: 6.4%
Controlling/Authoritarian: 5.8%
Arrogant: 5.5%
Strong/Powerful: 5.3%
Selfish: 4.6%
Intelligent: 4.0%
Progressive: 3.3%
Realistic/Pragmatic: 3.2%
None: 3.2%
Strong leadership: 0.8%
Other: 6.7%
Unsure: 4.9%

Party personality – NDP: Let’s assume for a moment that each federal political party was a person. What one word would you use to describe the personality of each of the following political parties? [Open-ended] [Randomize parties].

Canada (n=923)

Socialist: 13.3%
Caring: 10.2%
Bad/Incompetent: 10.1%
Good : 10.0%
New: 10.0%
Innovative: 8.6%
Trustworthy: 5.8%
Idealistic: 5.6%
Aggressive: 4.2%
Untrustworthy: 3.3%
Intelligent: 2.8%
None: 2.7%
Jack Layton: 1.0%
Other: 6.5%
Unsure: 6.0%

Party personality – Liberal Party: Let’s assume for a moment that each federal political party was a person. What one word would you use to describe the personality of each of the following political parties? [Open-ended] [Randomize parties].

Canada (n=931)

Bad/Incompetent: 18.4%
Untrustworthy: 16.2%
Good: 11.5%
Competent : 6.8%
Progressive: 5.8%
Strong/Powerful: 5.1%
Arrogant: 4.9%
Old-fashioned/Outdated: 4.4%
None: 4.3%
Liberal: 4.3%
Boring: 3.3%
Selfish: 1.7%
Centrist/Middle of the road: 1.0%
Other: 6.6%
Unsure: 5.8%

Party personality – Green Party: Let’s assume for a moment that each federal political party was a person. What one word would you use to describe the personality of each of the following political parties? [Open-ended] [Randomize parties].

Canada (n=941)

Environment/Eco-friendly/Green: 16.7%
Unrealistic/Naive: 14.7%
Not well known: 11.1%
Idealistic : 8.6%
Useless: 7.8%
Caring: 6.0%
None: 5.0%
Good: 4.8%
Hippie/Radical: 4.5%
Innovative: 4.5%
Boring: 3.2%
Other: 6.5%
Unsure: 6.5%

Party personality – Bloc Quebecois: Let’s assume for a moment that each federal political party was a person. What one word would you use to describe the personality of each of the following political parties? [Open-ended] [Randomize parties] [Quebec sample only].

Canada (n=232)

Useless: 15.4%
Narrow-minded/one-sided: 13.0%
Separatist/Independent: 11.7%
Aggressive : 10.7%
None: 6.3%
Untrustworthy: 5.2%
Selfish/Self-centred: 5.0%
Boring: 4.6%
Incompetent: 4.5%
Good: 4.0%
French: 3.4%
Arrogant/Stubborn: 2.9%
Radical: 1.7%
Not well known: 0.4%
Other: 4.0%
Unsure: 7.3%

Comments

comments

  • Anonymous

    What’s next? If the Conservative party were a vegetable, what kind would it be?

  • Anonymous

    In the recent Alberta provincial election, the big loser wasn’t the Wildrose Party, it was POLLING .

    So… you want us to pay attention to a poll? Really?

    I made the mistake of recently agreeing to do a phone poll. It took over 10 min, the inquisitor was snotty, and the questions sometime had baked in bias, or had incomplete or nonsensical answer sets, or attempted to draw out a specific position even though I said I was either not familiar or unqualified to draw any conclusion.

    I’ve promised myself to not do any more. I think all Canadians should shut out political pollsters at least for the next while. Political parties should be telling us what they stand for, not what they think we want to hear. Who’s with me?

    And death to push-polls.

  • DougM

     It is frustrating.  I complied with a request for one years ago and am still getting calls.    But I actually find the utter failure of the Polls in Alberta interesting.  Was it because, as you say, the pollsters are asking questions “baked in bias” to get the results they wanted to give to their client?   Science is supposed to be factual, but I’ve also seen a lot of “Science” in which two different scientists get completely different results – is margerine good for you or not?   Just look at the “green” technologies which then turhn out to be worse for the environment than what they replaced – anyone want a toxic lightbulb?
       Maybe Diefenbaker put it best in his “Polls are for dogs” comment but then he went on to lose that election, so there was at least some accuracy in the one being discussed.   To some extent, polls serve a purpose one supposes – a lot of Government policy and position is determined by polls – what happens if that data is as bad and the Alberta data?

  • Anonymous

    When the first “polling” firm  reporting on the race was a CPC/WR-friendly campaigning firm, and the poll wasn’t commissioned, it was “self-funded”, well it smelt like fertilizing time. It was the grandaddy of push-polls, meant to influence even other pollsters. I suspect the other pollsters fell for it.

    To some extent, polls serve a purpose one supposes – a lot of Government
    policy and position is determined by polls – what happens if that data
    is as bad [as] the Alberta data?

    The government’s operational data would presumably come from better-administered and thorough processes, (such as the census, hint, hint).  It’s my expectation that the government itself doesn’t do that much polling. Parties however…

    I appreciate that you’ve differentiated between science and “science” – the stuff that makes it to the popular media. Science is a thorough, self-correcting process that works very very well. It usually doesn’t produce easy-to-digest, broad sweeping answers. The failure occurs when various partisan actors examine the science, tease out the bits that they agree with, and ignore or smear the rest.

    Re the toxic CFL bulbs – just about all electronic devices are toxic problems when they’re thrown out; the failure is the lack of proper recycling arrangements that keep electronics out of the general waste stream. Especially today, when most electronic consumer devices are cheap, un-repairable and throwaway. A CFL bulb is a big win for consumers and the environment IF they are properly disposed of. If you’re saying they should have solved the disposal problem BEFORE introducing them, I would agree. Anyway, I expect that LED lighting will shortly displace CFLs.  LED lights are no more toxic than a clock-radio.

  • Anonymous

     BTW, there is applied science in the current polling process – behavioural science. Depending on the polling client’s intent, current polling techniques at their most innocent often attempt to squeeze the pollee’s position into what may be overly simplistic, or even inaccurate positions. This has the effect of influencing the pollee’s opinion to accept (often unconsciously) the facile alignment presented by the pollster.

    Of course this is itself a useful campaign tactic. If you can manipulate the framework in which the voter considers and ranks various  issues, you can then push the voter to a framework in which your platform wins out.

    Polls are doing more than reporting opinion; they are used more frequently to shape it. Let’s stop helping them.

  • Liz J

    Happy Birthday to Stephen Harper today, the best PM in memory.