SBP/Red C poll: 29/3/09

myksav

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
23,381
People want to be reassured after they kick the cat - Gilmore has been immitating Obama for all he's worth, short of dyeing his face.
Unfortunately for Mr Gilmore's reassurances, people have realised that the cat hasn't been fully kicked yet.

Immitating Obama? :shock: Is that what he's been trying to do? Someone should tell him it's not working.
 


TommyO'Brien

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
12,132
In a way the problems that FG and Labour are experiencing in this poll are those of lack of sustainability. It was always to be expected that the big increases FG and Labour got would be of the here today gone tomorrow type.

While SF have experienced a drop in this poll the underlying trend for Sinn Féin is still upwardly.

Steady sustainable growth is better than unsustainable growth of the type Labour and FG experienced.
Dear God in heaven - your delusion is amazing.

FG is in the 30s over 8 polls. It is ahead of FF in 8 polls. How is that of the 'here today, gone tomorrow' variety?

If it happened in one, maybe in two, you might have a point. But 8 polls? How in the name of God can anyone say FG's increase represents a "lack of sustainability" when it has been sustained over 8 polls and a number of months?

And your spin on SF is pure comedy.

SF has consistently failed to sustain gains, and is now in 2009 way behind where it was a couple of years ago. How in the name of God and his holy mother can you then claim that "the underlying trend for Sinn Féin is still upwardly"?

I know you spin frantically to claim all sorts of things about Sinn Féin, but in tonight's post you are hitting levels of deludability I thought impossible.
 

anewbeginning

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
4,616
FF are finished...they will never get above 30% in a national poll again, ever.

The people have at long last come to their senses, awoken from their stupor and realised what FF are all about, corruption and criminality and that a vote for FF represents a vote for corruption, criminality, cronyism and incompetence of the highest order.
 

Cyberspaced

Active member
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
122
FF are finished...they will never get above 30% in a national poll again, ever.

The people have at long last come to their senses, awoken from their stupor and realised what FF are all about, corruption and criminality and that a vote for FF represents a vote for corruption, criminality, cronyism and incompetence of the highest order.
If only.

I think it is rather premature to consider FF finished or to believe they will never get above 30% in a national poll.

Given that they've clawed back 5% in the Red C, it shows a portion of the electorate is willing to sway regardless. Also their core vote will always be there to build upon unless the next local election sees them totally decimated and this followed by a huge loss in Dáil seats.

Unfortunately for Ireland, FF has become ingrained almost, into Irish culture. They have time and time again bounced back from low places and cemented their place in the mindset of a significant proportion of the Irish population. It will take more than one set of elections to see them wiped out. It would have to involve a constant and unrelenting diminishing of their local and national representation over a significant number of elections.

The FF disease doesn't just disappear overnight.
 

myksav

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
23,381
The FF disease doesn't just disappear overnight.
Going by the poll results and details, only 30% think the alternative diseases are worth contracting.
 

factual

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
8,723
Factual, I've picked you up on this dozens of times, and every time you refuse to answer. But I'll try again.

Five years ago, SF's polling average, spread over the calendar year, was 10% - FG's was 22%. Now, no SF polling average, no matter how far back you go, is higher than 8%. Meanwhile FG's long-term polling average is now nudging above 30%.

So, which party is experiencing "long-term, sustainable growth"? And which one is at best flatlining, but actually trending a small decline?

Now please, for once in your life, address that point.
No problem. In each and every like for like election in the 26 counties since the 1980s Sinn Féin vote has increased. That's steady sustainable long term growth - par excellence!
 

adamirer

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
454
No problem. In each and every like for like election in the 26 counties since the 1980s Sinn Féin vote has increased. That's steady sustainable long term growth - par excellence!
hahahahaha....
fractually bigger vote and 20% less seats now than in 2002... you can spin it any way.
 

onthefence

Active member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
125
No problem. In each and every like for like election in the 26 counties since the 1980s Sinn Féin vote has increased. That's steady sustainable long term growth - par excellence!
Well ok, one extra vote is a increase
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
50,608
No problem. In each and every like for like election in the 26 counties since the 1980s Sinn Féin vote has increased. That's steady sustainable long term growth - par excellence!
No Factual, that's not the question you were asked. Firstly, we all know that SF's vote has done what you say by virtue of them running more candidates in each subsequent election. Secondly, your references to "sustainable growth" are always made in the context of opinion poll results, not elections - therefore it is poll result which we'll look at. So, back to my original question, which was:


Originally Posted by hiding behind a poster
Factual, I've picked you up on this dozens of times, and every time you refuse to answer. But I'll try again.

Five years ago, SF's polling average, spread over the calendar year, was 10% - FG's was 22%. Now, no SF polling average, no matter how far back you go, is higher than 8%. Meanwhile FG's long-term polling average is now nudging above 30%.

So, which party is experiencing "long-term, sustainable growth"? And which one is at best flatlining, but actually trending a small decline?

Now please, for once in your life, address that point.

Now Factual, here are some figures for you. They represent SF's TNS/MRBI poll figures from 2002-2009. Anyway, here you go (starting 2002)

9 9 9 9 10 12 10 11 12 11 9 11 10 9 9 8 7 9 10 10 9 (on 21st May 2007, followed by just 7% in the actual election shortly after) 7 8 6 8 8 9.


Now, here are the Fine Gael figures for the same period:

23 19 22 20 22 21 23 24 24 22 22 25 25 24 28 26 27 26 31 28 27 (May 21st 2007) 31 31 26 23 34 32.

Now, you keep talking about SF's "steady, sustainable growth", but at 9% in February 2009, they are at EXACTLY the same figure as they were in September 2002 - and more significantly, the trend line drawn through that string of figures shows SF hitting a highpoint from 2003-2005, but that trend line dropping from low double digits, back into high single digits today. Sustainable growth?

Now, look at the Fine Gael figures. You keep inferring that FG gets "here today, gone tomorrow" poll growth, yet the figures say the exact opposite. FG have gone from 23% in 2002 to 32% now - but far more significantly, their trend line has slowly worked its way from the low 20s, to the mid 20s, to the high 20s, and then (with the exception of the Cowen blip, the quirk of a government getting a mid-term honeymoon by virtue of having a new leader) into the low 30s. What's also noticeable is the consistency of the FG growth pattern - they leap a little into new territory, then consolidate for a couple of polls at that new high, then move on again, up to another new highpoint on the trend line.

So kindly address the point this time - which of those polls shows sustainable growth over the long term, and which one shows flatlining?
 

teachertime

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
131
FF are finished...they will never get above 30% in a national poll again, ever.

The people have at long last come to their senses, awoken from their stupor and realised what FF are all about, corruption and criminality and that a vote for FF represents a vote for corruption, criminality, cronyism and incompetence of the highest order.

...Isn't that gas.... a conclusion that FF will be in and around 30% going forward and that is seen as the people coming to their senses...what a country!!!

The blueshirts or the crooks!!!!
 

Lefournier

Active member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
117
Sorry if this has already been covered in this thread but what was the level of "Don't Knows"? The SBP give this information on the Lisbon poll but I can find it in their reports of the party poll.
I think I can answer my own question and I think it solves the mystery of the FF bounce.

RedC have a peculiar methodology for dealing with "don't knows": of those who tell RedC that they don't know who they will vote for (or who refuse to say), RedC will count 50% of them as voting for the party they supported in the last election.

My guess is that the number of "don't knows" has grown substantially in recent weeks (I'm one :confused:). Many FF voters who turned away from the party late last year and early this year are now having second thoughts, particularly about Labour which is identified strongly with public sector workers and seems unwilling to face the need for cuts in public expenditure.

If I'm right, many disaffected FF voters who gave Labour such a boost recently (never vote for a Blueshirt!) are getting cold feet but don't want to reverse themselves so they are now telling RedC that they are "Don't Knows".
RedC is crediting half of them to FF.

In all the commentary on the RedC poll, this point seems to have been completely missed even though it would neatly explain the only salient message in that poll: a 5 point shift back from Labour to FF.

Whether RedC's methodology is valid will be tested in June. My instinct is that this methodology is reasonable where voting patterns are fairly static i.e. assume that party loyalty will re-emerge at an election. Where the nation is facing unprecedented political turmoil, the methodology probably understates the scale of the seismic shifts.


Adjusting for Refusers/Don't Knows
Some people tell RED C that they intend to vote, and have a good past voting record, but say they don't know who they would vote for or refuse to answer the question. Whenever such people say which party they voted for in the last election, RED C ascribe 50% to the party they voted for previously. We have seen from analysis of past elections that this is the most likely outcome and overcomes the effect of the "spiral of silence" where voters are do not want to admit who they will vote for.
Redc Research
 

cctvstar

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
60
Sorry I may have missed this somewhere - but you know the actual polls where people get elected form govts etc back in 2007 could someone tell me where parties were percentage wise then compared to this poll here like? Or link it that would do fine too - thanks for that .
 

Partizan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
7,777
28% are the hardliners, die in the wool Zanu FFers. Even the country collapsing around them will not deter these robots from their genetically, pre-programmed course of voting for FF no matter what.

Some call it blind loyalty, I call it braindead.
 

smitchy2

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
1,811
The don’t knows factor is that it does not tally up when you are comparing the same poll.
There was a definite shift back to FF according to these numbers.

It is likely that many don’t knows won’t vote FF next time but it is really guessing without the real numbers.

There is a PS vote which is swaying from FF to Labour at the moment.

I think it will be firmly back with Labour after the budget.
 

NapperTandy

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
90
I think I can answer my own question and I think it solves the mystery of the FF bounce.

RedC have a peculiar methodology for dealing with "don't knows": of those who tell RedC that they don't know who they will vote for (or who refuse to say), RedC will count 50% of them as voting for the party they supported in the last election.

My guess is that the number of "don't knows" has grown substantially in recent weeks (I'm one :confused:). Many FF voters who turned away from the party late last year and early this year are now having second thoughts, particularly about Labour which is identified strongly with public sector workers and seems unwilling to face the need for cuts in public expenditure.

If I'm right, many disaffected FF voters who gave Labour such a boost recently (never vote for a Blueshirt!) are getting cold feet but don't want to reverse themselves so they are now telling RedC that they are "Don't Knows".
RedC is crediting half of them to FF.

In all the commentary on the RedC poll, this point seems to have been completely missed even though it would neatly explain the only salient message in that poll: a 5 point shift back from Labour to FF.

Whether RedC's methodology is valid will be tested in June. My instinct is that this methodology is reasonable where voting patterns are fairly static i.e. assume that party loyalty will re-emerge at an election. Where the nation is facing unprecedented political turmoil, the methodology probably understates the scale of the seismic shifts.




Redc Research
This might have been the case in the past, but I don't think it is the case now. When Charlie Haughey was leader, FF used to score lower in elections than they did in opinion polls. The same thing happened with Albert Reynolds. When Bertie became leader, FF scored higher in elections than they did in opinion polls( this is where Red-C are getting their present polling methodology from.

I believe Red-C are fully aware that their polling methodology no longer applies. It is my belief that they are continuing with this methodology for calculated reasons.

There will be a huge discrepancy between this opinion poll and the next MRBI poll. There is already a 10% difference in Govt support between this poll and the last MRBI poll?? Does this make sense?
 

Lefournier

Active member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
117
This might have been the case in the past, but I don't think it is the case now. When Charlie Haughey was leader, FF used to score lower in elections than they did in opinion polls. The same thing happened with Albert Reynolds. When Bertie became leader, FF scored higher in elections than they did in opinion polls( this is where Red-C are getting their present polling methodology from.

I believe Red-C are fully aware that their polling methodology no longer applies. It is my belief that they are continuing with this methodology for calculated reasons.

There will be a huge discrepancy between this opinion poll and the next MRBI poll. There is already a 10% difference in Govt support between this poll and the last MRBI poll?? Does this make sense?
I think you're right to say the RedC methodology would address an anti-FF bias i.e. people would actually vote FF but not admit it to pollsters (Sinn Fein had a similar pattern in the North). It was not unreasonable to attribute to FF 50% of the "don't knows" who had voted FF last time out.

Bertie changed that anti-FF factor - his key insight was that FF could never get an overall majority and Haughey had destroyed himself trying to achieve it (now we know why!). RedC were not misleading us in 2002 and 2007 because many "don't knows" went for FF in the final days of the campaign.

All this has changed in recent months. If the current anger is sustained, I think a lot of those who voted FF in 2007 will vote for anyone but FF next time out (i.e. in June). Allocating "don't knows" is a tricky business but it should be done transparently. I would back MRBI over RedC.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom