Wikipedia

Opinion polling for the 2006 Canadian federal election

(Redirected from 2006 Canadian federal election opinion polls)

Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election of 2006 (held on 23 January 2006) showed a long period of variable support for the governing Liberal Party of Canada and opposition Conservative Party of Canada. Prior to and throughout much of the campaign, the Liberals held a small lead over the Conservatives; as of early January 2006, the Conservatives had taken the lead. This was confirmed on election day when the Conservatives won a plurality of votes and seats, being empowered to form a minority government in the 39th Canadian parliament.

Summary

edit

In the leadup to the 2006 federal election, several opinion polls were commissioned to gauge the voting intentions of Canadians, particularly in the wake of Jean Brault's testimony at the Gomery Commission on 7 April 2005. The results of these polls showed a dip in support for the Liberals, which encouraged the Conservatives to seek an early election by tabling a non-confidence motion. However, Liberal support recovered following an agreement with the New Democratic Party (NDP) to support some changes to the federal budget and a number of incidents involving Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) Gurmant Grewal that hurt the Conservatives. Consistently since the Brault testimony, the polls have indicated that an election would result in an increase in the number of seats for the Bloc Québécois and NDP, and cyclical gains and losses for the Conservatives inversely to the Liberals.

In November 2005, the first report by Justice John Gomery was released to the public; subsequently, the poll numbers for the Liberals again dropped. Just days later, a new poll (Strategic Counsel: 6 November 2005) showed the Liberals were already bouncing back. On 28 November 2005, the minority Liberal government succumbed to another Conservative non-confidence motion supported by the three opposition parties and the writs for an election were dropped. The Conservatives achieved near parity but, early in the campaign, again fell back behind the Liberals. Renewed accusations of corruption and impropriety at the end of 2005 – amid Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) criminal probes concerning possible government leaks regarding income trust tax changes and advertising sponsorships – led to an upswing of Conservative support again and gave them a lead over the Liberals, portending a possible change in government.

Polling figures for the NDP increased slightly, while Bloc figures experienced a slight dip; figures for the Green Party did not change appreciably throughout the campaign.

Poll results

edit

 

The dates listed are normally the date the survey was concluded. Most news and political affairs sources use the convention of using the last date that the poll was conducted in order to establish the inclusion/exclusion of current events.

Polling firm Last date
of polling 		Link LPC CPC NDP BQ GPC Margin
of error 		Sample
size 		Polling method Lead
Election 23 January 2006 30.2 36.3 17.5 10.5 4.5 N/A 14,817,159 6.1
Strategic Counsel[1] 22 January 2006 PDF 27 37 19 11 6 ± 2% 2,500 10
Nanos Research[2] 22 January 2006 PDF 30.1 36.4 17.4 10.6 5.6 ± 3.1% 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 6.3
Ipsos-Reid 22 January 2006 HTML 27 38 19 12 4 ± 1.1% 9,648 11
Nanos Research 21 January 2006 PDF 28.1 37.0 17.7 11.3 6.0 ± 3.1% 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 8.9
Strategic Counsel 21 January PDF 27 37 18 11 6 ± 2.2% 2,000 10
Nanos Research 20 January PDF 29.4 36.2 17.3 11.0 6.1 ± 3.1% 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 6.8
EKOS 20 January PDF 26.9 37.1 19.5 11.5 4.6 10.2
EKOS 20 January[3] PDF 24.4 38.4 19.8 11.9 5.4 14
Ipsos-Reid 19 January PDF 26 38 19 11 5 12
EKOS 19 January PDF 27.0 37.1 19.7 11.2 4.5 10.1
Strategic Counsel 19 January PDF 28 38 17 11 7 10
Nanos Research 19 January PDF 29.0 35.5 18.8 11.1 5.6 ± 2.9% 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 6.5
EKOS 19 January[3] PDF 27.3 37.4 20.8 10.1 3.9 9.9
Strategic Counsel 18 January PDF 28 37 16 12 7 9
Nanos Research 18 January PDF 30.7 37.0 16.6 10.7 4.9 6.3
EKOS 18 January[3] PDF 29.3 35.1 18.0 12.6 4.4 5.8
Leger Marketing 17 January PDF 29 38 17 11 — 9
Strategic Counsel 17 January PDF 25 41 17 12 5 16
Nanos Research 17 January PDF 31.5 36.9 17.6 10.0 4.0 5.4
EKOS 17 January PDF 27.2 36.9 19.6 11.0 4.8 9.7
Strategic Counsel 16 January PDF 24 42 17 12 5 18
Nanos Research 16 January PDF 30 37 18 10 4 7
EKOS 16 January[3] PDF 29.6 35.8 19.4 11.6 3.4 6.2
Decima Research 15 January PDF 27 37 18 11 — ± 3.1% 1017 telephone 10
Ipsos-Reid 15 January PDF 26 38 19 12 5 12
Strategic Counsel 15 January PDF 27 40 16 11 6 13
Nanos Research 15 January PDF 29 37 18 11 5 8
EKOS 15 January PDF 27.2 38.6 18.6 10.6 4.4 ± 3.2 968 Telephone 11.4
Nanos Research 14 January PDF 30 38 17 10 6 8
Strategic Counsel 14 January PDF 27 40 16 11 6 13
Nanos Research 13 January PDF 29 38 16 11 7 9
Strategic Counsel 12 January PDF 28 38 16 11 6 10
Ipsos-Reid 12 January HTML 29 37 18 10 5
Nanos Research 12 January PDF 31 40 14 10 6 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 9
EKOS 12 January PDF 28.3 37.6 18.1 11.6 3.7 ± 2.0 2,045
EKOS 12 January[3] PDF 27.4 38.1 18.1 11.5 4.5
Strategic Counsel 11 January PDF 27 39 16 12 6
Nanos Research 11 January PDF 29 38 16 12 5 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 9
EKOS 11 January[3] PDF 28.8 36.3 17.9 13.3 2.8
Strategic Counsel 10 January PDF 28 39 16 12 1,500
Nanos Research 10 January PDF 30 39 16 12 4 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 9
EKOS 10 January[3] PDF 29.9 37.1 17.6 11.6 3.2
Strategic Counsel 9 January PDF 28 38 16 12 6
Nanos Research 9 January PDF 31 35 17 13 5 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 4
EKOS 9 January PDF 26.8 39.1 16.2 12.6 5.4
Ipsos-Reid 8 January PDF 26 37 18 13 5
Decima Research 8 January PDF 27 36 20 11 5
Nanos Research 8 January PDF 31 34 17 11 6 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 3
Strategic Counsel 8 January PDF 29 37 15 13 6 ± 2.5 1,500 8
Nanos Research 7 January PDF 32 34 17 11 6 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 2
Nanos Research 6 January PDF 32 35 17 10 6 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 3
Ipsos-Reid 5 January PDF 31 35 18 10 5 ± 2.2 2,004 4
EKOS 5 January PDF 30.8 36.0 17.5 10.6 4.7 ± 2.2 1,968
Strategic Counsel 5 January PDF 31 33 17 13 6
Nanos Research 5 January PDF 33 34 17 11 5 ± 3.2 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 1
Leger Marketing 4 January PDF 32 34 16 11 5
Strategic Counsel 4 January PDF 32 32 17 13 6
Nanos Research 4 January PDF 33 35 15 12 5 ± 3.2 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 2
EKOS 4 January PDF 30.4 36.2 17.9 10.4 4.7 ± 2.7 1,386
Strategic Counsel 3 January HTML 32 32 17 13 6 ± 2.5 1,500 0
Nanos Research 3 January PDF 33 36 15 13 4 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 3
Strategic Counsel 31 December 2005 PDF 33 31 17 14 6 2
Nanos Research 30 December PDF 35 35 14 13 4 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 0
Ipsos-Reid 30 December PDF 32 33 18 12 5 ± 3.1 1,000 Telephone 1
Decima Research 30 December PDF 32 30 18 14
Nanos Research 29 December PDF 35 34 14 13 5 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 1
Nanos Research 28 December PDF 38 32 14 13 4 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 6
Nanos Research 23 December PDF 38 31 15 12 5 ± 3.1 1,200 (1/3) Telephone (rolling) 7
Ipsos-Reid 22 December PDF 33 32 16 13 5 ± 3.1 1,000 Telephone 1
Strategic Counsel 22 December PDF 36 29 17 13 5
Nanos Research 22 December PDF 39 29 15 12 5
Environics 21 December HTML 35 30 17 12 5 ± 3.1 1,010 5
Strategic Counsel 21 December PDF 33 30 18 14 5
Leger Marketing 21 December PDF 36 28 17 12 5
Nanos Research 21 December PDF 37 29 15 12 6
Strategic Counsel 20 December PDF 34 30 16 15 5
Nanos Research 20 December PDF 37 31 14 13 6
Strategic Counsel 19 December PDF 33 29 17 15 6
Nanos Research 19 December PDF 37 29 16 13 5
Strategic Counsel 18 December PDF 34 29 19 13 5
Pollara 19 December HTML 37 34 17 10
Nanos Research 18 December PDF 38 29 16 12 4
Nanos Research 17 December PDF 38 30 15 13 4
Nanos Research 16 December PDF 39 31 14 12 5
Strategic Counsel 15 December PDF 34 30 18 13 5
Nanos Research 15 December PDF 39 33 12 12 5
Strategic Counsel 14 December PDF 34 30 17 14 5
Nanos Research 14 December PDF 39 32 12 12 5
Leger Marketing 13 December PDF 35 29 17 12 6
Strategic Counsel 13 December PDF 34 29 17 14 6
Nanos Research 13 December PDF 38 31 14 12 5
Strategic Counsel 12 December PDF 33 31 17 13 6 2
Nanos Research 12 December PDF 38 30 13 14 5
Ipsos-Reid 11 December PDF 36 27 17 14 5
Pollara 11 December HTML 38 30 15 12
Strategic Counsel 11 December PDF 34 30 16 14 6
Nanos Research 11 December PDF 39 31 14 13 4
Strategic Counsel 10 December PDF 35 30 15 14 6
Nanos Research 10 December PDF 39 32 14 13 4
Decima Research 9 December PDF 36 27 20 13 4
Nanos Research 9 December PDF 39 30 15 11 4
Strategic Counsel 8 December PDF 36 28 16 14 6
Nanos Research 8 December PDF 41 26 18 11 4
Ipsos-Reid 8 December PDF 34 30 15 14 5
Leger Marketing 7 December PDF 39 27 16 12 5
Strategic Counsel 7 December PDF 36 30 15 14 5
Nanos Research 7 December PDF 40 26 18 11 4
Strategic Counsel 6 December PDF 35 29 16 13 6
Nanos Research 6 December PDF 40 28 17 11 4
Decima Research 5 December 34 26 20 14 —
Strategic Counsel 5 December PDF 35 29 16 14 6
Nanos Research 5 December PDF 38 30 16 12 5
Strategic Counsel 4 December PDF 35 29 16 14 6
Nanos Research 4 December PDF 37 30 16 13 5
Strategic Counsel 3 December HTML 34 30 16 14 6
Nanos Research 3 December PDF 38 29 15 14 5
Nanos Research 2 December PDF 36 31 14 14 5
Ipsos-Reid 1 December PDF 33 31 17 14 5
Strategic Counsel 1 December HTML 35 30 16 14 6
Nanos Research 1 December PDF 37 29 15 14 5
EKOS 1 December PDF 34.1 27.4 18.4 14.0 6.0
Strategic Counsel 30 November PDF 35 30 17 14 5
Ipsos-Reid 28 November HTML 31 31 18 15 5
Decima Research 28 November 36 28 19 12 —
Strategic Counsel 27 November PDF 35 29 17 14 5
Pollara 27 November HTML 36 31 16 14 —
Environics 25 November 35 30 20 14 1
EKOS 24 November PDF 38.7 29.4 16.9 10.6 3.0
Ipsos-Reid 24 November HTML 34 30 16 15 5
Ipsos-Reid 15 November 36 27 16 13 6
Decima Research 14 November PDF 33 26 22 13 —
Pollara 13 November 36 28 20 —
Nanos Research 13 November PDF 34 28 20 14 4
Ipsos-Reid 10 November PDF 34 28 19 14 4
EKOS 9 November PDF 33.0 27.9 20.9 13.1 4.9
Leger Marketing 8 November PDF 34 26 18 11 7
Decima Research 7 November PDF 33 30 20 14 —
Strategic Counsel 6 November 35 28 16 13 8
Strategic Counsel 3 November 28 31 20 13 7
Ipsos-Reid 2 November 31 30 19 13
Nanos Research 27 October PDF 40 28 15 12 4
Ipsos-Reid 27 October 38 26 18 11 5
Pollara 17 October 38 30 17 — —
Decima Research 17 October PDF 35 29 17 13 —
Environics 16 October 38 27 20 10 —
Strategic Counsel 13 October PDF 38 25 15 14 —
Pollara 2 October 36 30 19 11 —
Ipsos-Reid 29 September PDF 37 27 17 14 4
Decima Research 26 September PDF 36 29 17 13 —
Praxicus 23 September 33 29 20 — —
Strategic Counsel 13 September 35 28 17 13 7
Leger Marketing 11 September PDF 40 24 15 13 5
Ipsos-Reid 22 August 36 28 17 11 6
Strategic Counsel 15 August 36 28 17 — —
Nanos Research 8 August PDF 39 25 19 13 —
Environics 28 July HTML 34 31 20 11 —
Decima Research 25 July PDF 39 24 19 14 —
Pollara 18 July 38 27 15 13 —
Strategic Counsel 16 July 35 26 19 13 7
Pollara 28 June 36 29 18 11 —
Ipsos-Reid 28 June 35 27 18 13 6
Decima Research 20 June PDF 37 25 20 13 —
Ipsos-Reid 20 June 34 29 16 12 6
Strategic Counsel 11 June 34 26 19 13 9
Pollara 6 June 38 27 19 13 —
Decima Research 5 June PDF 37 23 21 13 —
Decima Research 22 May PDF 36 27 21 13 —
Leger Marketing 22 May 2005 PDF 38 27 17 12 4 ± 2.6% 1,509 11
Ipsos-Reid 20 May 2005 34 28 17 — 6 6
Strategic Counsel 18 May 2005 33 30 19 12 6 3
COMPAS 17 May 2005[4] PDF 29 38 17 13 — 9
EKOS 17 May 2005 PDF 34.7 28.3 18.4 12.6 5.6 6.4
Environics 17 May 2005 33 31 22 10 — 2
Decima Research 15 May 2005 PDF 32 31 19 14 — 1
Ipsos-Reid 14 May 2005 27 31 19 13 6 4
Strategic Counsel 10 May 2005 27 31 20 14 7 4
Decima Research 8 May 2005 PDF 37 28 18 12 — 9
Ipsos-Reid 7 May 2005 32 31 16 12 5 1
Nanos Research 5 May 2005 36.1 29.5 17.9 12.2 4.3 6.6
Pollara 4 May 2005 31 36 17 15 — 5
Decima Research 2 May 2005 PDF 32 29 20 15 — 3
Ipsos-Reid 28 April 2005 PDF 30 33 17 12 5 ±3.1% 1000 Telephone 3
EKOS 28 April 2005 PDF 32.5 30.5 19.0 12.0 5.5 2
GPC P.A. 28 April 2005 33 30 13 13 10 3
Strategic Counsel 28 April 2005 30 28 18 16 10 2
Ipsos-Reid 24 April 2005 PDF 31 34 18 11 5 ±3.1% 1000 Telephone 3
Decima Research 24 April 2005 PDF 27 32 21 15 — 5
Ipsos-Reid 21 April 2005 PDF 30 35 18 12 5 ±3.1% 1000 Telephone 5
Pollara 21 April 2005 31 35 18 12 — 4
Nanos Research 18 April 2005 31.6 37.9 14.9 11.9 3.8 6.3
Decima Research 17 April 2005 PDF 28 35 18 14 — 7
Ipsos-Reid 14 April 2005 PDF 27 36 15 10 7 ±3.1% 1000 Telephone 9
COMPAS 14 April 2005 30 34 18 15 1 4
Environics 14 April 2005 27 33 24 11 2 6
Environics 12 April 2005 36 30 19 11 4 6
Leger Marketing 11 April 2005 PDF 31 34 18 13 — ± 2.5% 1,504 Telephone 3
Ipsos-Reid 10 April 2005 PDF 27 30 19 12 7 ±3.1% 1000 Telephone 3
Decima Research 10 April 2005 PDF 31 32 19 14 — 1
EKOS 9 April 2005 PDF 25.0 36.2 20.5 12.6 5.0 11.2
Ipsos-Reid 7 April 2005 PDF 34 30 15 10 7 ±3.1% 1000 Telephone 4
Last election 28 June 2004 HTML 36.7 29.6 15.7 12.4 4.3 7.1
  1. ^ Strategic Counsel polls from 27 November onwards are multi-day polls. Each new poll removes approximately 1/3 of the data that is the oldest, and replaces it with new data from that day.
  2. ^ Nanos polls from December onwards are 3-day polls. Each new poll removes the 1/3 of the data that is the oldest, and replaces it with new data from that day.
  3. ^ Various EKOS polls contain results from a single night of polling only. They have fewer respondents than most other polls and, thus, EKOS notes that they are not as credible; however, they are intended to provide a general indication of daily polling trends.
  4. ^ This Compas poll was taken over the course of a single day.
  5. ^ Polling for this data mostly occurred before Jean Brault's Gomery Inquiry testimony was released.

NB: The margin of error in these surveys is typically between 2.5 and 3.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. See the links for actual error values associated with particular surveys. Because these figures are national percentages, they may not reflect the expected number of seats won by each party. Indeed, the sample size in many polls is not sufficient to give a statistically accurate prediction in individual ridings, and hence the expected number of seats.

All polling companies rely on cooperation from individuals contacted over the phone. The major companies claim a typical response rate is between 20 and 35 percent.[1]

Seat predictions

edit

Several websites, polling firms and notable Canadians devised various method of projecting the final election result. Included below are those cited in Andrew Coyne's blog.[2]

Projector Conservative Liberal NDP BQ Other
Final Results HTML 124 103 29 51 1
ElectionPrediction.org 118 104 29 56 1
democraticSPACE.com 128 94 29 56 1
UBC Election Stock market [5] 127 93 33 54 1
jord.ca 135 72 38 62 1
Loblaw Election Pool 136 89 26 57 0
Laurier University [6] 140 78 33 56 1
Andrew Coyne [7] 140 81 31 54 2
TrendLines Federal & Provincial Riding Projections 140 75 35 57 1
ElectionPolls 141 79 30 58 1
PinnacleSports.com 146 74 31 57 0
Ipsos-Reid [8] 148–152 62–66 34–38 56–60 -

See also

edit

References

edit
  1. ^ "CBC – Canada Votes 2006 – Voter Toolkit". 10 December 2005. Archived from the original on 10 December 2005. Retrieved 21 April 2021.
  2. ^ "andrewcoyne.com: Last call". 19 February 2006. Archived from the original on 19 February 2006. Retrieved 20 April 2021.
edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opinion_polling_for_the_2006_Canadian_federal_election&oldid=1257406986"