New Poll: Wildrose up by 17 points

Alberta Flag Orig

Another poll shocker from Campaign Research today as their latest tracking poll shows the Wildrose Party in Alberta up by 17 points over the PC Party.

You’ll remember a week ago that Campaign Research first released their poll via this website and had Wildrose up by 9 points while other pollsters had the PCs tied with Wildrose. In the following days, other pollsters caught up to confirm the 9 point lead.

Now, this poll show’s Danielle Smith’s Wildrose up by 17 points.

Here are the other highlights:
- Wildrose would take 45.5% of the popular vote if an election were held today
- PCs at 28.4%
- gap closing in Edmonton, expanding in Calgary and rural areas
- Wildrose 50.0% in Calgary, 28.1% in Edmonton, and 51.9% in the rest of Alberta
- Best Premier poll: Smith has 30.5%, Redford has 28.9%

UPDATE: Here is the Campaign Research press release,

  • Darrylgray

    I am surprised that as conservatives we prefer to eat our own as opposed to agreeing to disagree..pc/reform set this country back 20 years….co.operation and smiles would sell our philosophy much better than infighting and vengeance….and I am surprised by your partisanship…..

  • http://www.stephentaylor.ca Stephen Taylor

    Partisanship? My post says “Here are facts! Read these facts!” The only opinion offered here is yours.

  • http://twitter.com/LeighPatrick LeighPatrickSullivan

    So…..PC voter, then?

  • johndemerais

    The fearmongering ads have begun . Heard a ” Danielle Smith not worth the risk” ad on the radio , changed the station .

  • Bryan Senka

    “Agreeing to disagree” is the problem. It’s how you end up with parties that are not what you signed up for, and voters with an attitude of “what can you do?”. 

    Both Reform and Wildrose are examples of the electorate exorcising democracy in the most honourable way. It lets it be known that we are not giving up our time, money and votes for a party that merely uses the word conservative, we expect it to act conservatively. Stray too far left, and we have no qualms about hitting the reset button. That’s the way it should be.

  • Anonymous

     Ahem. One can express partisanship by choosing which facts to post and comment upon. And from choice of source for said facts.

  • Craig Smith

    By your definition there is absolutely NOTHING in this world that isn’t partisan.

  • Craig Smith

    Name ONE thing conservative about the PC Party. One thing! I bet you can’t.

  • Anonymous

    I’m merely suggesting that Mr Taylor’s disclaimer of non-partisanship is too cute by half.

    If you’re an observer of North American politics, you’ve already noticed that in both Canada and the US there are deep ideological divides in our politics.  Sensible compromises seem impossible to achieve, and truth is difficult to find.

  • Anonymous

    The second word in their name.  I went through what they had for policy (if you can call it that) last year.  The only thing “C” is in the name.  After getting thumped they should merge with the Liberals or change their name to the Progressives.  The idea of them being conservative is a sham.

  • johndemerais

    i’ve been saying that since before  the unions elected Stelmach

  • Wildrose voter

     I’d like to suggest to the federal version that that is what I voted for in the last federal election. Did I get it? No! I got the “wait until we get a majority-majority, and shut up”. I’ve got two words for that.

  • Anonymous

     Had Ms. Redford listened instead of pronouncing it might have been different. I submit that there is a wide gulf between Ms. Redford and such that any comprises would not have made each other happy. She did not consult anyone on her .05 law and was about to incorporate portions of the HRA into the Education Act. She claims Dave Hancock consulted widely but it seems that Catholics and home schoolers were not as they both expressed opposition to the amendments. The inquiry into doctor bullying became primarily whether there is queue-jumping. PC backbenchers were on a committee that hasn’t met in nearly 4 years. A PC staffer tweeted a personal attack against Ms. Smith. Is there a pattern here? Unfortunately Ms. Redford is just the front man of a dysfunctional organization that needs to renew and rebuild itself. Perhaps then there will be a basis for re-unification. Just like the AA 12-step program which starts by admitting failure so must the PCs come to realize that on their own before getting back on the road to recovery.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=682534581 Myra Ross

    The AA 12-step program starts by admitting insanity, defined as doing the same thing over and over, each time, as personal and familial injuries become more serious, expecting different results.  Just thought I’d clarify that for you.  Failure is not the appropriate word.  In the AA context, surrender to the reality is not ‘failure’ but an opportunity for positive transformation spiritually, intellectually and in every other sense.

  • Al

    Not very familiar with your budding party out here in
    Ontario.  But I did some reading of
    Smiths platform and policies.   I like much
    of what she has to speak to; although some portions that  relate to fiscal issues appear to just be shell
    games –Peter robbing Paul.   Just to touch on one, the 20% kickback to
    Albertans from the petroleum reserves; certainly a  shell game and also a possible conflict of interest
    in regards to protecting the interests  of future generations (environmental
    speaking)  If there was a environmental  report brought to the attention of Albertans,
    that would require a major reduction in  production ( = profits)  Would you give up your monthly dividend if it meant
    heeding those calls and protecting the environment and the health of Albertan’s?  or could it now become easier to turn a blind
    eye?  I think the 20% divined proposal is
    just a shell game anyway.  Where is that
    money going now?  (probably to government
    programs that the citizens are already taking advantage of)

    perhaps take that 20%
    and put it areas where it is most needed – or cut peoples taxes.  But just don’t pay someone directly…  this can also 
    condition  people to become
    dependent on government for money.   But if this was to become a reality  look for government to balance things out again
    (for them) through raising your taxes and fees in other areas.  Someone once sais that if something is to
    good to be true – it usually is.