Canadian Public Opinion Polls on Afghanistan

[simysmom99]

We are well started on your list of to-do's Flip.  We have written a book *due out August 29, 2007* (okay, shameless plug), I have done editorial pages, we get interviewed a lot.  And of course, if anyone wants some education I try to help or I suggest sources for their answers.  I guess that is all we can really do. 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Lecherous bloodsucking slime licking  friggin' goofs.........yea, I'm looking at you polling companies.

I think by law these clowns should have to release also how many polls were conducted with the same question, how many people told them to stop calling and hangups, and also the geographical makeup of the poll.
To do otherwise makes the poll useless.............................I would like to call the same *thousand* people and ask the same question with " even though this means allowing Mr. Taliban to continue murdering thousands of helpless women and children at their leisure?" attached to the end of the question.

 

[RangerRay]

I believe that Decima is a Liberal-friendly polling firm...I usually ignore their polls.

 

[Etienne]

Humm...for the PQ results, I am wondering were did they call... in the region of Quebec City the support is very VERY  high to us..

And Yess 5 CMBG is doing great

Etienne

 

[atlas]

This poll is still misleading in that, if anything, it actually masks the degree of popular opposition to the war.

I have read in other polls that almost half of Canadians want troops out before 2009, so I couldn't figure out how over 60% would support staying there for another two years (when the current mission is supposed to end.) 

The answer is on Decima's website, where you can read the survey and results. (Go to http://www.decima.com/en/pdf/news_releases/070612AE.pdf)

It shows that Canadians were only posed with two options on the length of deployment issue. Those choices were:

Do you... 1) Support an extension past 2009. or 2) Support leaving in 2009 as scheduled

The truth is that there should have been a third option for "troops leaving before 2009" which would have received a sizable percentage. Obviously anyone truly opposed to the conflict felt compelled to choose option 2 over option 1.

 

[ArmyRick]

i agree with bruce. Polls and LOADED questions can be set to easily dupe or get the answer they are looking for. It would be like saying "In spite of all the allegations of criminal activity agaisnt Mr Bloggins, what is your opinion of him?" You the average canuck would have been presented with a thought along with a question.

The liberals I don't doubt for one second are lovingt his crap. Too many people were "liberal drunk" when thos monkeys were in power.  :threat:

 

[McG]

Support for Afghan mission dropping: poll
Meagan Fitzpatrick, CanWest News Service
Published: Monday, July 16, 2007

OTTAWA -- As the country mourns the loss of six soldiers killed in Afghanistan and reflects on a death toll that has now mounted to 66 soldiers and one diplomat, a new national poll indicates that Canadians are almost equally divided on their support for the mission.

The poll, conducted exclusively for CanWest News Service and Global National by Ipsos Reid, showed that half of Canadians -- exactly 50 per cent -- said they either "strongly" or "somewhat support" the use of Canada's troops for security and combat efforts in Afghanistan.

Almost equally planted on the other side of the debate are 45 per cent of Canadians who said they either "strongly" or "somewhat oppose" the mission in Afghanistan. The remaining five per cent said they do not have an opinion one way or the other.

The latest numbers show a continuing drop in support for the mission since it reached a peak in the fall of 2006 at 57 per cent. In April 2007, support had slipped to 52 per cent, and now to 50, according to the polling firm's data.

But even with the declining support, pollster Darrell Bricker says the conventional wisdom that as casualties mount, support will drop, is not necessarily proving true.

"I actually expected that the numbers were going to be quite a bit lower because of what happened last week," Bricker said, referring to the six soldiers who were killed by a roadside bomb on July 4. "But I think what's happened is that the issue is starting to transcend the issue of casualties."

Bricker said it's important to note the demographics of the people who are supportive of the mission. The poll found that Canadians with a university degree were the most likely to support the mission and nearly six in 10 Canadians whose households earn at least $60,000 a year were among those who are supportive.

"What I think that we're seeing a little bit of here is that people who are a little bit more worldly, that are more plugged into the idea of Canada in the world, seem to have a bit more tolerance for this because they actually see the payoff as being more significant than simply just a sacrifice of troops," Bricker said. They may also be getting used to the idea of casualties, he added.

He said the Conservative government has been trying to push a message about Canada's role in the world and trying to shift the focus to the reconstruction efforts of Canadian troops in Afghanistan and that message may be getting through to Canadians, at least to a particular group of them.

"The other good thing about this for the government is that these people are more likely to vote," Bricker said.

But still, the Ipsos Reid poll, conducted between July 10 and July 12, is one of several in recent weeks that have shown dwindling support for the mission.

In Quebec, where the Conservatives are eager to gain ground, support for the mission remains low. The poll found that just three in 10 residents there support the mission while 65 per cent either strongly oppose or somewhat oppose the combat operations.

Support for the mission, or lack of it, could change in the coming months in Quebec now that a large contingent of troops from that province is set to deploy to Afghanistan. About 200 members of the Royal 22nd Regiment, known as the Van Doos, from CFB Valcartier left Sunday for Afghanistan and hundreds more will deploy over the coming weeks until they make up more than 2,000 of Canada's 2,500 troops in Afghanistan.

At the same time as a growing number of Canadians withdraw their support for the mission, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has changed his tone about how long it will last. Earlier Harper had said his government would seek a degree of parliamentary consensus before considering any extension of the mission beyond the February 2009 commitment. But last week in Calgary the Prime minister was clearer and said his government has no desire to prolong the combat mission in southern Afghanistan.

Bricker said time would tell how that news plays out.

About 1,000 adult Canadians were interviewed for the poll and the results are considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=f6a34b10-d80a-4f26-b710-418e10aa9dc5

 

[SiG_22_Qc]

Government isn't lead by polls. Nevertheless, anger the population, end up in opposition.

 

[armyvern]

Government isn't lead by polls. Nevertheless, anger the population, end up in opposition.

Really?? Ever notice how policy seems to change when poll results do??

The Liberals were famous for it.

 

[vonGarvin]

Source:  http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070718/afghanistan_poll_070718/20070718?hub=TopStories

(Shared in accordance with the normal caveats)

"Earlier this month, anti-war protesters crashed a parade for the Quebec-based 22nd Regiment known as the Van Doos, who are now being deployed to Afghanistan.
The soldiers also received about 3,000 letters asking them not to go"

From what others have said about that "parade crashing", is this misinformation?  As well, earlier ctv (television, not the "dot see-eh") said something to the effect that "the Taliban have killed 66 Canadian soldiers".  By my count, 6 were killed by friendly fire, at least 4 in traffic accidents, 1 by accidental fall and 2 by unauthorised/accidental/negligent discharges.  That's 13, leaving "53" killed by the Taliban.  Since the NDP like to harp on about how combat is not "our way", a rather low number of our troops have actually  been killed "in combat": 14 (eg: direct fire by the enemy, as opposed to suicide bomber, IED, landmine, or whatever.  I put "in combat" in quotes simply because I cannot find another way to say that the enemy were shooting at our lads, as opposed to planting explosives.  The difference is that even with our bullet proof Blue Berets, those fellows killed by IED, landmines, suicide bombers, whatever, would still be dead.  Probably more if we weren't in combat killing those who would plant such mines, etc)

 

[Trinity]

"Earlier this month, anti-war protesters crashed a parade for the Quebec-based 22nd Regiment known as the Van Doos, who are now being deployed to Afghanistan.
The soldiers also received about 3,000 letters asking them not to go"

No, they received one letter, 3000 times.  Big difference between 3000 people writing letters vs 1 person doing a mass flyer.
(Yes, I know its the article, not you Sensible)

 

[alfie]

2 points, one Polls ..they never ask me and how does 1-20 protesters constitute "crashing a parade" if it wans't;t for our NDP slanted media nobody would have even known they were there.

 

[Gardiners1]

Wouldn't it be nice if they polled a few thousand members of the Armed Forces and published those results?

 

[vonGarvin]

Wouldn't it be nice if they polled a few thousand members of the Armed Forces and published those results?

then it wouldn't be an accurate sample of the population.  It would be like doing a poll on Vancouver's lower east side, asking about the legal status of marajuana.  Roughly 100% would be in favour!  Publishing that data as representative of the general population's opinion would be false reporting.

 

[a_majoor]

I wonder how accurate these polls are? We have read reports on this forum from service members who have been disconnected by the pollsters when they start giving "pro" CF or "pro" mission answers. I don't know all the questions or methodologies, but I strongly suspect "push polling" (i.e. the answer is given in the question) might be used in many cases.

Combined with the distinctly one sided reporting in the news, and the "chattering classes" are shaping preceptions, rather than the public reacting to what is actually happening in the mission.

 

[Flip]

As much as they are liberal biased they are biased toward controversy.

If 1 person is in a conflict with 20 then the two sides get equal air.
It's not representative of the population, or even what's happening.
It just demonstrates how violent that tempest is, without showing that it's in a teapot.

If members of the CF and veterans demonstrated in front of NDP HQ
It would get air......
A red shirt rally with inflamatory sighnage that calls Jack a liar, maybe?

A "save the Afghan babies" rally.
Women's rights in Afghanistan?

As with polls, it's all in how you sell it. _ If Canadians saw "our" side they would support our view ( I think anyway).

 

[Hawk]

But do you realize that to an extent that's exactly what polling firms do( carefully pick the area to poll)? They pick areas where they're likely to get the result the client wants.  Then they carefully word the question to make it confusing to the respondent, or the answer choices are designed so they force the response they're asking for.

They have qualifiers at the beginning of a poll. These could be age, sex, employment, education, salary range. Beware of polls that ask these qualifiers before they get into the poll. They're fishing for just the right demographic to pad the poll.

The questions can be done in 2 ways, and both are effective in getting the right answers. One way is a great long paragraph, read verbatum, and quickly, then asking if you 1. strongly agree, 2. somewhat agree, 3, disagree, 4. somewhat disagree, 5. strongly disagree.

The other method is to make a statement based on some press nonsense. Then say: which of the following statements is closest to your opinion,  and offer you 3, 4, or more long winded, and usually poorly written statements, and you have to choose.

Most, but not all, polling firms insist that their people read everything verbatim. If you ask them to clarify, they're trained to say," I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to interpret the question, but I can read it for you again". Trust me, this is drilled and drilled in training. Then they read it again, exactly as before.

Try to get out of answering? "I'm sorry, but I require an answer before we can go on, now, would you say . . ." Hang up? your number goes to a Refusal Buster, who will try it again.

I've been trying to find an online poll to lead you to. The preditory company I'm most aware of, won't call me - I'm on their Do Not Call list.

Been there, done that - refuse to wear the t-shirt.


Hawk

 

[GAP]

Nobody has commented on it, but has anyone noticed that in the last year the polling numbers have changed. The standard was around 2,000 a year ago....most polls now, and within the last 6 months are only of 1000. I don't think their accuracy numbers would hold up to scrutiny, especially if they are pick a demographic or geographic area in addition to lower numbers.

 

[niceasdrhuxtable]

2 points, one Polls ..they never ask me and how does 1-20 protesters constitute "crashing a parade" if it wans't;t for our NDP slanted media nobody would have even known they were there.

I happened to be there during that big parade (as a spectator, not a participant) and subsequent "crashing" and there were a lot more than 20 protestors. I'd say probably in the neighbourhood of 200.

Also, I consider this to be a relevant piece of news, not some left-wing media agenda, as there were actually some minor scuffles where the protestors tried to disrupt the marching.

 

[Hawk]

The low numbers likely mean better pinpointing of the desired demographic. They won't just do 1000 surveys - they will accept 1000 surveys. The survey will come back to haunt the callfloor night after night till they have the right number of positive and negative numbers required to satisfy the client. They may only have to get 100 more completes to finish up after the first night of calling, but when they go in the next night, they may need 500. Good chance the required numbers haven't been reached yet. I know from using their software as a supervisor, that it can track almost anything you want tracked - including the number of positive and negative responses. Everything and everyone is monitored.

Notice its cosidered accurate not is accurate 19 times out of 20 - whatever that means.

Sorry, I just don't trust any polling firms.


Hawk