Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - GDT: The Alberta Election 2012 - The Morning After

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 04-23-2012, 11:47 PM

My final report card:

We kind of knew it was going to be a long night for Wild Rose when results started trickling in from rural ridings where they should have been doing really well, and they showed a slight lead to the PCs. Looking at the results now, it appears that the Wild Rose actually did quite poorly in urban areas: they may win as many as three seats in Calgary--two seems more likely at this point--and were absolutely shut out in Edmonton, in a few cases coming in a distant third place. They even came in third in one riding in Lethbridge.

On the other hand, they also did much less well than they needed to in rural areas--they lost a number of ridings that if the polls were right they SHOULD have won easily. In some of those cases (West Yellowhead; Grand Prairie, eg) it wasn't even close.

So what happened?

One of two things:
1. The first is that the polls failed to capture a late shift in voter preference over the last weekend of the campaign--the only poll to show such movement was Forum, and it showed a 2-point lead for Wild Rose as recently as yesterday--a 9% loss is not all that close to a 2-point lead, though you could argue that Forum came closer than anybody else. We might call this scenario (the late-breaking wave scenario) the "Leech-Hunsberger" effect.

2. The second possibility is that there was never this appetite for Wild Rose in the first place. Under this scenario the polls were just, for lack of a better word, "wrong." They vastly overestimated Wild Rose's support and underestimated Tory support.

I actually favour the second scenario, mostly for its simplicity. It does mean that certain pollsters (I'm looking at you, Angus Reid) need to take a long hard look in the mirror tomorrow morning. You got it wrong, guys: not a little bit wrong, but a lot wrong. Angus Reid had the Wild Rose at 41% (they came in at 35) and the Tories at 31: they came in at 44! The only thing they apparently got right was the level of support for the Liberals and NDP; both fell within the margin of error.

More importantly, a 9-point lead for the Wild Rose became a 9 point lead for the Tories on election day. That's not even close enough for horseshoes: that's an 18% difference.

Clearly, the big losers tonight are pollsters.

04-23-2012, 11:47 PM	#418
Iowa_Flames_Fan Referee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Over the hill Exp:	My final report card: We kind of knew it was going to be a long night for Wild Rose when results started trickling in from rural ridings where they should have been doing really well, and they showed a slight lead to the PCs. Looking at the results now, it appears that the Wild Rose actually did quite poorly in urban areas: they may win as many as three seats in Calgary--two seems more likely at this point--and were absolutely shut out in Edmonton, in a few cases coming in a distant third place. They even came in third in one riding in Lethbridge. On the other hand, they also did much less well than they needed to in rural areas--they lost a number of ridings that if the polls were right they SHOULD have won easily. In some of those cases (West Yellowhead; Grand Prairie, eg) it wasn't even close. So what happened? One of two things: 1. The first is that the polls failed to capture a late shift in voter preference over the last weekend of the campaign--the only poll to show such movement was Forum, and it showed a 2-point lead for Wild Rose as recently as yesterday--a 9% loss is not all that close to a 2-point lead, though you could argue that Forum came closer than anybody else. We might call this scenario (the late-breaking wave scenario) the "Leech-Hunsberger" effect. 2. The second possibility is that there was never this appetite for Wild Rose in the first place. Under this scenario the polls were just, for lack of a better word, "wrong." They vastly overestimated Wild Rose's support and underestimated Tory support. I actually favour the second scenario, mostly for its simplicity. It does mean that certain pollsters (I'm looking at you, Angus Reid) need to take a long hard look in the mirror tomorrow morning. You got it wrong, guys: not a little bit wrong, but a lot wrong. Angus Reid had the Wild Rose at 41% (they came in at 35) and the Tories at 31: they came in at 44! The only thing they apparently got right was the level of support for the Liberals and NDP; both fell within the margin of error. More importantly, a 9-point lead for the Wild Rose became a 9 point lead for the Tories on election day. That's not even close enough for horseshoes: that's an 18% difference. Clearly, the big losers tonight are pollsters.