Welcome to my blog. I learn so much from others who share with me their thinking, opinions, experiences, photos, music, pains, happiness, and so much more. In turn, I like sharing too and especially enjoy engaging and thoughtful dialogue. So don't be afraid to tell me what you think. If you want to know more about me and my work, I hope you will read a few of my posts and visit corestrategies.ca.  

A blog or so ago I used a similar opening image. This does not mean I'm losing creativity. It simply means the image still applies and is best for today's post.

Of the national party leaders, who would you guess is happiest the Green Party touched 13% national support according to Decima Research? Conventional wisdom might suggest Elizabeth May, but that's where any wisdom I may wish to impart on the analysis is anything but conventional.

Don't get me wrong, Eliz, as I refer to her because her full name is too long to say and type, was pretty bubbly when she called to tell me what reporters were telling her.

No doubt, 13% and its ancillary meanings is significant and I will touch more on that below.

But the happiest person is not Elizabeth May, and not just because she'd rather the number was say, 16%. Indeed, the happiest person is the guy in the top right hand corner, and the unhappiest person, besides Jack, is the party leader not in the picture.

There's nothing like diversion to take away from the real story and the underlying qualitative mood-swing taking place that quantitative polling is only now starting to notice.

The real story - read as the concerning story - is not the industry bickering over which pollsters' methodological package is the most well-endowed to settle larger than margin-of-error discrepancies between 13 and 8, but rather the near 10 point jump in Ontario, for the Conservatives.

March 5, 2007

Make no mistake, the Conservative machinery is, as we type, pouring over data that is stripping layer-upon-layer off the 416 versus 905 data. If, and that's a big IF, the GTA is going through yet another ideological incarnation, and if the data suggests in any way, shape, or form the Conservatives can garner GTA support for say 60 days, then the likelihood of a May-June election won't be the only "junk-science" about which Mr. Harper will suddenly be born-again.

With all due respect, and I mean that with sincerity, especially to my good friends in Quebec on whom the National spotlight just dimmed a little, the Federal election battleground has formed, if it hasn't yet altogether cemented.

Back to 13% however. On any other day 13 would be insignificant. The significance this time out rests in the symbolism of the virtual tie this represents between the Greens and the NDP. This isn't to say one necessarily steals votes from the other, although there is some of that too. But rather it's a fight over who is the most threatening of the ankle-biters to Misters Harper and Dion?

For decades the NDP has tried, with mostly varying degrees of unsuccessfulness, to be that third, "none-of-the-above," option. Finding himself in a virtual tie, Jack Layton is spiraling downward, while momentum  has Elizabeth May reaching for what she believes comes after 8 and 13.

Think Jack Layton isn't worried? Think again and observe the numerous tactical errors he is making. People tend to make mistakes when they are worried. Upon hearing the news of the polling results, what did Mr. Layton say in addition to 'I don't comment on polls?'   Very smugly he retorted 'we have seats, they don't!' 

With that kind of attitude, why doesn't Mr. Layton just come right out and say the opinions of 13% of Canadians, exactly equal to his own support base, simply does not matter ... that only the shared opinions of those who share living in the same riding matters. The message from Jack Layton being, that unless you can fit to current rules (first-past-the-post) your opinion doesn't count. For now, systemically true perhaps, but not a particularly wise stance to be taking in this age of the digital democracy.

This stance is essentially the same position Mr. Layton took in his year-end interview with CBC's Don Newman, when he was asked questions about Elizabeth May's inclusion, or not, in the Leaders' debates. "We are going to live with these rules" was Mr. Layton's response, referring to the one-time criteria of seat equals podium.

Is this a matter of conviction or convenience? On this, public opinion is also very clear. According to Canadians, Jack Layton is worried and he has good reason to be.

We know that:

• 77% of Canadians want Elizabeth May in the debates. We know further that 81% of even NDP supporters want her there too.

• 60% of Canadians think it's unfair the Bloc, NDP, and Greens have roughly the same level of National support, but the seat count is 50, 29, and 0 respectively.

• 72% of Canadians think some form of proportional representation is something Canada should take a look at.

• 65% of Canadians think it's important that in the next election 'at least a few Green party candidates get elected.'   

So, tied at 13% what's the difference between Green and NDP?

Statistically? One party is on the down-tick and the other is on an up-tick

Perceptually? One party has had it's kick at the third place can, the other is in the process of establishing its credentials and ability to take over that space.

Realistically? Any pollster worth his salt will tell you one number (8) is just that, one number. A second number (13) isn't a trend. A trend requires a third number, say 16. If that happens, look out.

What does 13% mean? It means one person is talking and one person is listening. He/she who listens, then talks, wins.  

Coming Soon:

February 5, 2007 ... "Dithering dictators vs. the constituents' tongue"

13% ... what does it mean?