Polls, Schmolls

You knew this was coming. Angus-Reid poll on the recent SHRIEEEEK-fest over sex-selective abortion.

Three-in-five respondents—including two thirds of women—believe there should be laws to outline whether a woman can have an abortion based solely on the gender of the fetus.
. . .
In the online survey of a representative sample of 1,001 Canadian adults, 51 per cent of respondents believe there should be laws which outline when a woman can have an abortion in Canada. Conversely, 37 per cent of Canadians think there should be no laws on this matter and want women to have the unrestricted right to have an abortion at any time up to the moment of birth.

(Note spin there at the end. 'Any time up to the moment of birth'!!!! Two SHRIEEEKS for the price of one!!!1! Ah well, I suppose polling companies would lose a ton of dough if abortion were uncontroversial.)

In reply to Chris Selley's posting of the above info (with typical NatPo spin, emphasizing that a [slim] majority of Liberal voters think there should be laws on 'when a woman can have an abortion in Canada'), SadieMae said:

This is why we don't write laws based on polling data.

That wedge-issue debate still won't open.

To recap: Yes, sex-selective abortion IS a problem where it is widely practised. It is NOT widely practised in Canada and likely to grow even less so. A gender imbalance in some communities would affect only those communities and would perhaps get them rethinking their antediluvian treatment of women.

A law would be useless -- women will use at-home prenatal gender tests or go to the US.

And yet, there will be much caterwauling about this for months to come.

"My job is to end ... politicians’ careers."

Think about that for a moment.

That was a Rovian statement, with all it implies of dirty tricks, amoral tactics, unlimited resources and murderous intent.

It was said by a guy who is the CEO of a *polling firm* - Campaign Research of course. It appears some legitimate pollsters are rousing themselves from their state of stupified complacency to investigate complaints against this little shit and his odious actions.

From polling methods described as “reprehensible” by the Commons Speaker, to some questionable polling in the federal and provincial elections, Canada’s public-opinion research industry has faced its share of controversy in the past year.

One big test case is looming immediately — an investigation by the Market Research Intelligence Association into the activities of the polling firm Campaign Research, which conducted a survey in the Montreal riding of Liberal MP Irwin Cotler that earned a slap from Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer.

If MRIA finds that the firm breached its standards — a charge that Campaign Research vigorously denies — this would be a first for the Canadian polling industry.

The call for stricter measures on how polls are conducted and reported is coming from some leading pollsters, who worry that the credibility of their business is getting dragged down by lax or controversial standards in Canada.

“I’m a little disgusted; no, make that a lot disgusted,” says Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos, who wrote an open letter to Canadian journalists last fall, warning of the growth of sketchy practices in political polling.

Too little, too late.

Sarah Palin's Downward Spiral

Is that not a splendid headline about The $arah©™ Palin©™?

From here:

Palin's favorability among Republicans — not support for a presidential candidacy; but merely whether they like her — has usually been in the 70s or 80s, well above other prominent party members. But now it's in the 50s, right down there with the other sad sacks[...] So now intensity of support among primary voters, the only reason a Sarah Palin presidential candidacy has been taken with the least bit of seriousness, isn't much of a factor anymore. They prefer Mitt Romney, an abortion-loving plastic liberal from Taxachusetts, more than Sarah Palin.

And also. Too:

Here's a brief history of Sarah Palin's relationship with the establishment Republican party and its supporters in the press: They sat on their hands after John McCain picked her as vice president because she was able to fire up a despondent base; they continued to sit on their hands in the two years leading up to the 2010 elections because Palin raised tons of money while mobilizing the Tea Party; and now that that's over, they don't want her to run for president because she's an embarrassment to the nation and clearly incapable of doing the job even if she were to somehow win, which she won't.

But they can't just call her an incompetent joke in public. The base would rush to her defense! So instead they come up with meek, over-intellectualized excuses for why they don't like her and want her to disappear forever.

Best of all, now that The $arah©™ Palin©™ is shedding supporters faster than true pit bulls lose the lipstick, more ... dare we say? ... realistic and not-so flattering pix of her are popping up on the web.

Like this one, f'rinstance. Eh.

Poll: Canadian men, stupid

Another poll.

It seems Conservatives are from Mars and Liberals are from Venus.

A new poll indicates the gender gap has increased between the two top federal parties.

The Harris-Decima survey, conducted for The Canadian Press, put Conservative support at 36 per cent among men, compared with 26 per cent for the Liberals.

With women, the Liberals led 34 per cent to 27 per cent for the Tories. The Conservatives have been ahead of the Liberals with women in several polls over the past year, but they lost ground this summer.

The comments are good. Some samples:

just look at the way the harper cons treat female colleagues when they mess up.
it speaks volumes.

Three words explain it Mr. Harper

Long Gun Registry

Well guys, I've resisted the idea that women are smarter than men. This however seems to be conclusive evidence.

And I swiped the title from this one:

The headline on this story should read:

Poll: Canadian men, stupid

Pro-choice on the upswing again

Remember that weird poll a couple of months ago reporting that so-called pro-life adherents in the US outnumbered pro-choicers for the first time?

Some argued that it was an outlier. Well, they may have been right. The pendulum has swung back.

There's a graph tracking the ups and downs of the polls on this issue here as well as this bit of speculation:

The recent dip in pro-life support could be a response to the recent assassination of late-term abortion provider George Tiller. It may also speak to the passing of the Obama-at-Notre Dame controversy, which revolved around the president's and the Catholic Church's abortion stances.

I'd put more credence in the first notion. Sensible people suddenly saw what the rightwing nutbars had wrought and they're bailing.

May it continue and accelerate.