Weirdest, Messed Up Polls

[Hash]

Post weird, unlikely, outlying poll results you found.

I found this:

Quebec election 2007: October 2006
PQ 51%
PLQ 32%
ADQ 13%

[Verily]

That's not surprising at all; Boisclair was massively popular until he had to campaign.

[Hatman 🍁]

February 2007

Cons 36
Liars 27
NDP 13
The Satan Party (Greens) 13
Bloc heads 8

[Tetro Kornbluth]

February 2007

Cons 36
Liars 27
NDP 13
The Satan Party (Greens) 13
Bloc heads 8

Why do you hate the Satan Party?

[Hatman 🍁]

February 2007

Cons 36
Liars 27
NDP 13
The Satan Party (Greens) 13
Bloc heads 8

Why do you hate the Satan Party?

People vote for them thinking they are a left wing alternative when in reality they are full of right wing enviro-hacks who somehow think their laissez-faire policies will *help* the environment.  Elizabeth May for one was a lobbyist during the Mulroney and Chretien eras, and was the only environmental representative to support the Liberal environment record during the 90's.

I only used "satan" party because I couldn't think of anything when I posted, but perhaps a better name would be the "non-greens" or the "conservagreens".  The NDP has a far better environmental platform and can actually implement it. We are the true "green party".  I sincerely doubt the Greens will win any seats, even with 13% of the vote (spread to thinly), so they only risk taking seats away from the only party that really cares about the environment.

[Hash]

Talk to me about this "Satan Party" when the sea level will have raised and we'll have a true emergency- global warming.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Talk to me about this "Satan Party" when the sea level will have raised and we'll have a true emergency- global warming.

I'll talk to you about them never because how could you elect a Satan Party?

[Gustaf]

Gallup, Swedish referendum 13th September 2003:
Yes: 43%
No: 42%

(final result 14th September 2003 was Yes 42%, No 56%)

[Hatman 🍁]

Talk to me about this "Satan Party" when the sea level will have raised and we'll have a true emergency- global warming.

Did you even read my post? The point of it was the Green Party is NOT the best party to vote for to deal with global warming. I do not deny global warming in any way nor do I discredit its importance as an issue!

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Talk to me about this "Satan Party" when the sea level will have raised and we'll have a true emergency- global warming.

Global warming screws over china and india more and besides Canada has no military so "requisitioning" the land for settlers wouldn't be hard.

[Hash]

What has the NPD done about the environment in all those years in power?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Its actually been in power so a hell of alot more than any "Green" party that's for sure.

[Verily]

What has the NPD done about the environment in all those years in power?

Indeed, this is my question as well. I don't recall British Columbia or Ontario or Manitoba or Saskatchewan ever making any progress on environmental issues, yet all of those have been governed by the NDP during the 1990s or 2000s. The NDP has too many conflicts of interest with their labor-based support to effectively implement environmentalist policies.

[Hatman 🍁]

What has the NPD done about the environment in all those years in power?

The NDP has never been in power federally.  I cannot vouch for the provincial wings in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, but in Ontario I can tell you that the NDP was led by Bob Rae who is now a Liberal. As if a Liberal would care about the environment!

Besides, we all know the federal NDP is more committed to the enviornment than any of its provincial wings.

[Hash]

The NDP was in a coalition with the Martin government and could have pressured them to do environmental measures

[Hatman 🍁]

The NDP was in a coalition with the Martin government and could have pressured them to do environmental measures

What have you been smoking? The NDP was never in any such coalition!

[Hash]

"The Liberals were re-elected, though this time as a minority government. Combined, the Liberals and NDP had 154 seats--one short of the total needed for a majority. As has been the case with Liberal minority governments in the past, the NDP were in a position to make gains on the party's priorities, such as fighting health care privatization, fulfilling Canada's obligation to the Kyoto Protocol, and electoral reform.

Despite the results, the party took advantage of Prime Minister Paul Martin's politically precarious position with the sponsorship scandal which prompted him to make a rare televised appeal to the electorate and the opposition to allow the Gomery Commission to make its full report on the affair before any election. The NDP reacted by offering their support for the Liberal Party, provided that some major concessions in the federal budget were ceded to in the NDP's favour. The governing Liberals agreed to support the changes in exchange for NDP support on confidence votes. On May 19, 2005, by Speaker Peter Milliken's tie-breaking vote, the House of Commons voted for second reading on major NDP amendments to the federal budget, preempting about $4.5 billion in corporate tax cuts and funding social, educational and environmental programs instead. Both NDP supporters and Conservative opponents of the measures branded it Canada's first "NDP budget". In late June, the amendments passed the final reading vote and many political pundits concluded that the NDP had gained credibility and clout on the national scene."

How 'bout that?

[Gabu]

Gallup, Swedish referendum 13th September 2003:
Yes: 43%
No: 42%

(final result 14th September 2003 was Yes 42%, No 56%)

That actually doesn't sound that messed up, given that the "Yes" vote was pretty well bang-on; couldn't it have been the case that all the undecideds went for "No"?

[Hatman 🍁]

"The Liberals were re-elected, though this time as a minority government. Combined, the Liberals and NDP had 154 seats--one short of the total needed for a majority. As has been the case with Liberal minority governments in the past, the NDP were in a position to make gains on the party's priorities, such as fighting health care privatization, fulfilling Canada's obligation to the Kyoto Protocol, and electoral reform.

Despite the results, the party took advantage of Prime Minister Paul Martin's politically precarious position with the sponsorship scandal which prompted him to make a rare televised appeal to the electorate and the opposition to allow the Gomery Commission to make its full report on the affair before any election. The NDP reacted by offering their support for the Liberal Party, provided that some major concessions in the federal budget were ceded to in the NDP's favour. The governing Liberals agreed to support the changes in exchange for NDP support on confidence votes. On May 19, 2005, by Speaker Peter Milliken's tie-breaking vote, the House of Commons voted for second reading on major NDP amendments to the federal budget, preempting about $4.5 billion in corporate tax cuts and funding social, educational and environmental programs instead. Both NDP supporters and Conservative opponents of the measures branded it Canada's first "NDP budget". In late June, the amendments passed the final reading vote and many political pundits concluded that the NDP had gained credibility and clout on the national scene."

How 'bout that?

That doesn't change the fact that there was no coalition. The NDP got a lot done to promote important issues during that government, but the Liberals never allowed us to pass better environmental legislation.

[Hash]

Didn't the NDP stand for PR? Another thing they didn't do.

[Gustaf]

Gallup, Swedish referendum 13th September 2003:
Yes: 43%
No: 42%

(final result 14th September 2003 was Yes 42%, No 56%)

That actually doesn't sound that messed up, given that the "Yes" vote was pretty well bang-on; couldn't it have been the case that all the undecideds went for "No"?

No. The undecideds didn't vote mostly. I think a majority of the late-deciders went for the yes-side actually. Anyway, as you must know, you don't get a 100% swing of undecideds in ONE DAY. It was just a crappy push poll designed to make yes-voters more motivated.

[Hatman 🍁]

Didn't the NDP stand for PR? Another thing they didn't do.

Yes, we do. We still do. It's kind of hard to push PR through the house when the other 3 parties are against it.  Without the NDP in power, PR will be very unlikely to occur, and the Green Party stealing our votes wont make it come sooner.

BTW, I am aware of the irony in that last sentence

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You sometimes get mildly amusing polls here shortly after party conferences and so on.

[Gabu]

No. The undecideds didn't vote mostly. I think a majority of the late-deciders went for the yes-side actually. Anyway, as you must know, you don't get a 100% swing of undecideds in ONE DAY. It was just a crappy push poll designed to make yes-voters more motivated.

Oh, oops, I didn't see that it was the day before the referendum.  Never mind.