Who is going to win?

[Jaguar]

Could we have a "summarized for non-Canadians" version?

[Tupac Shakur]

Jesus, what the **** happened to this thread? Thank god I'm buzzed right now...

[Uncle Sparky]

Could we have a "summarized for non-Canadians" version?

Summery: Sometimes pollsters are right. Sometimes pollsters are wrong. Election results are the only accurate poll.

[Guynemer]

Jesus, what the **** happened to this thread?

I don't know, but I blame Ben and Oerdin.

That's usually a safe bet.

[-Jrabbit]

Could we have a "summarized for non-Canadians" version?

My take: There was a big election in Canada last year. Wezil and NYE disagreed on the accuracy of polls and projections, and it got a bit personal.

The election still happened.

[Dinner]

I don't know, but I blame Ben and Oerdin.

That's usually a safe bet.

I've only made two post in the last several pages and neither was about the thread jack.

In fact, they were both on topic.

[snoopy369]

Why do you assume the elections are an accurate poll? I think elections are typically an awful way to determine what people want in government. They tend to make their selections for idiotic reasons they themselves don't understand, and at least in the US the cooperation rate is horrible.

[Dinner]

It's true. We consider it good if half of the eligible voters bother to show up and the eligible voters only make up something like 2/3rds of the population so we're talking 1/3rd of the people are voting and 2/3rds of the population are not. Of that 1/3rd a good number of them haven't bothered to do any research and know nothing so they make decisions based upon things like who has a nice hair cut or who they would prefer to have a beer with. It's rather sad.

[notyoueither]

The election still happened.

I think that made him more angry. He continually brings that exchange up.

[giblets]

Didn't the NDP get over 50 Quebec seats? What was so outrageous about those seat projections? Looks like you were wrong and the polls were right, just as Wezil said.

[notyoueither]

Both of us were both correct and wrong about a lot of things in that thread.

The NDP ended up getting 59 seats in Quebec, but it was with a higher percentage of the vote (42.9) than in the poll that was being discussed.

If the seat projection were based on 50% support (the PCs in '84 got 50.2, the Bloc in '93 got 49.3) I would not say it is outrageous. The number used for the projection in 38.7 so I would suggest that indeed something is being projected.

I wasn't arguing that the NDP wouldn't do well. I was arguing that a particular projection seemed fishy, and I said why.

I made several statements of fact;
Frank Graves is a known Liberal partisan.
One can observe his polls consistently showing lower than average support for the PCs.
His projection of a landslide for a party in a single region were based on a significantly lower portion of the vote than in cases of past landslides in that region.

Wezil spun that into me claiming that Frank Graves is a liar and part of an anti-conservative conspiracy, or some such rot. I find it amusing that he brought that discussion up in another discussion where he throws a hissy fit over people putting words in his mouth. I'm reminded of the observation that we detest most in others what we do not like in ourselves.

[notyoueither]

Could we have a "summarized for non-Canadians" version?

Wezil hates it when you put words in his mouth, but quite gleefully erects absurd strawmen.

notyoueither could learn to relax a bit more.

[Ben Kenobi]

Could we have a "summarized for non-Canadians" version?

"Harper sucketh mightely"

"Harper is the greatest evil in the universe"

"No, it's Bush"

"Number two is you", etc.

[-Jrabbit]

How much does the average European actually know about this election?
http://www.globalpost.com/series/201...rld-could-vote

Here's an endorsement that surprised me: The Economist goes Obama.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoz...for-president/

[Hauldren Collider]

Why on earth would that surprise you?