Sunday, May 31, 2009


Who is behind the tele-polling this weekend which is asking a lot of questions about Michael Ignatieff?
My spouse got polled Sunday from an unfamiliar agency. Among the questions asked were: Michael Ignatieff will return to teach at Harvard if he doesn't win the next election - how do you feel about that?
The man also asked: The current advertising about Michael Ignatieff 'Just Visiting' talks about his recent return to Canada - How has it affected your opinion of him?
Michael Ignatieff was a supporter of the coalition - are you more, less or undecided on if you support the coalition?
Michael Ignatieff has said he would raise the GST if elected - are you more, less or undecided likely to vote Liberal knowing this?
Michael Ignatieff proposed the Green Shift first - does that affect your opinion of him positively, negatively or undecided?
Which party is the one you feel can deliver on the following issues: getting tough on crime; dealing with the economy; and protecting Canada's place in the world?
Which statement is closer to your opinion: To get Canada on track we need a Conservative majority; or, to get Canada on track we need a coalition government?

There were more questions, she said it took about 10 minutes and the man asking the questions would not say who had commissioned the poll. It's fairly obvious to me who commissioned it, and for what purpose.
The CONs are spending a lot of money to see what kind of effect their current ad campaign is having on the public, while also fishing around for the next missive (coalition? taxes? economy?)... That the questionaire was knee-deep in lies and twisted truths is enough evidence to be convinced who is behind it.
I'm just hoping that we tax payers aren't paying for it. Oh, who am I kidding - we know that they are using public funding for this kind of BS; whther its via tax-payer subsidized political donations or fisking the federal treasury for its polling/focus grouping expenditures, Canadians are coughing up.
Too bad the MsM is only worried about its piece of the action to not dig up the dirt on Harper and his disgusting alliance.


WesternGrit said...

We should be using a company like Vincero, or First Contact to get our own "unbiased but heavily biased" poll out... These things don't cost very much (not necessarily), and can have a nice "PR effect", if questions are worded "correctly":

1) Stephen Harper lied about Canada's national deficit. Knowing this, are you more or less likely to vote for the Conservatives?

2) (In more ethnically diverse ridings) The Federal Conservatives believe that people who have lived or worked outside of Canada are somewhat less Canadian. Knowing this fact, are you more or less likely to vote Liberal?

3) Stephen Harper eats kittens. Knowing this fact, are you more or less likely to vote for the Western Canada Reform-based Conservative Party?

4) (In Surrey and Mississauga/Malton ridings) Conservative MPs think Sikhs are "hotheads who play the "race card". Knowing this fact, are you more or less likely to choose another party in the next federal election?

5) (In bedroom communities with lots of seniors - like Kelowna) Jim Flaherty lied about taxing income trusts. Many of your neighbors lost their life savings thanks to the Federal Conservatives. Knowing this, are you less likely to vote Conservative, not likely to ever vote Conservative again, or willing to donate to another federal party to help end the "Stephen Harper experiment"?

penlan said...

This is disgusting. Wonder if the "results" of this poll will be released to the media? If so it would be totally unfair unless all questions are released with it so people can see how biased it is - so perfectly pro-Con worded.

If I get a call like that I'd insist on knowing who's doing the polling.

bigcitylib said...

Wasn't KLRVU Research, by any chance, was it?

Scott Tribe said...

Did your wife or you keep a record of what the phone # was that they used, by any chance?

rockfish said...

Western Grit - I really wonder what the purpose of these leading polls have, so I really wonder why we'd venture into it considering there has been no outlay of money to defend MI from the first attack - which is another problem. First, any response puts a defensive stance, solidifying in the minds of some that MI has done anything wrong, and secondly, stooping to the CONs level. But something has to be done. i'm expecting they are designing their next attack ad in this. The CONs have so much money that they can delve deep into the muck. I do like the kitty question ;-)

rockfish said...

Penlan - I'm betting that all the 'data' gained is for their war room only. They spent about 1/3rd of the questions on reactions to MI and 'Just Visiting' - ie Does his intention to leave Canada if he isn't elected will play a role in how you vote etc? My wife is an immigrant with very strong english language capabilities, but some of the questions stumped her. She responded that her 'newness' to Canada and the tone of the attacks combined to make her more sympathetic to Ignatieff. She didn't ask who was doing the polling; apparently, Randy White operates a polling company here in BC.

rockfish said...

BCL - Do you got some dirt on KLRVU, do you?

Scott - unfortunately, she didn't note the phone #... We haven't been polled often but its always intriguing when one does come through - although she's a member of a political party (not the same one I'm with, unfortunately!) and one of us is a journalist...

RuralSandi said...

Do you have call display? Good idea to have it.

I had a call something like that and before they could go further I asked if they were working for the Con party - they hung up (I should have kept them going for a minute). Unknown name/number showed up, but Bell would have records of calls.