Who won the Alberta Debate?

[Nemic]

Who won the Alberta Debate?

imo.

1. Alison Redford
2. Brian Mason
3. Danielle Smith
4. Raj Sherman

[SP59]

That's how I would rank it.

[Mla]

1. Redford
2. Smith
3. Sherman
4. Mason

IMO

[Blueline]

http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...106#post435106

[Jasper]

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...297/story.html

[IanO]

Alison did a decent job given the typical all fingers pointing to those in power at debate thing.

Driving up to Slave Lake yesterday there was quite the PC/WR battle in terms of signs et al.

[Richard Bunky Bell]

Firstly I hate the PCs and feel it's time for a change but The Wildnuts Party would be 200 time worse. That being said here's how I rank last nights debate.

1. Alison Redford. She handled all comers with expertise. She made Smith made look like the rank amateur she is. Against my better judgement Redford is an impressive and confident leader who's not afraid to admit errors.

2. Danielle Smith. She used her pseudo-eloquence and good looks to sell her snake oil. It's what she didn't say about her plans that scares me the most.

3, Brian Mason. A perfect gentleman and an ethical politician. That's why people can't believe him.

4. Raj Sherman. Another ethical politician with a good plan for Alberta. He even said he'd raise taxes. Good for him, I have no problem with that. But he's one lousy debater. Does that really matter?

[sundance]

5) None of the above. (in some ways Danielle Smith)

Pretty much it was a no-win/no-lose situation. For Redford to win she'd have to stand on her head, unfortunately her past foibles (the committee that never met, accepting 30% pay raise, voting to remove $100 million from education funding while a cabinet minister, then adding it back in after becoming the premier) meant that she didn't have much of a hope.

All some ways Danielle just had to keep to her platform to win, however her platform means cuts to the Royal Alberta Museum, Anthony Henday NE, LRT, re-opening City Center Airport, all of which means that Edmontonians lose.

Raj, to me his comment on education funding revealed more to me. He wants to cut all private education funding, last time I checked even people who send their kids to private schools pay an education tax (its buried in property taxes), so why shouldn't they get to decide what to do with their tax dollars.

[edmonton daily photo]

Allison
Maison
Smith
Raj

[moahunter]

I think people always think "their" candidate won the debate, regardless of who actually did, unless there was a major slip up. Don't beleive me? Have a look at the poll results in the Calgary Hearald and Edmonton Journal on who won the debate. In EJ its a tie. In CH, big lead to WR.

For example, I remember so many people on here thinking Igantieff won the national debates, when he clearly didn't. Even political scientists, left leaning ones say their candidate won, right leaning say theirs. Its the same in Federal or Provincal.

Also, I think it takes a few days sometimes for the memories to sink in. Did anything hit a mark that strikes a chord? Clearly WR this morning are tyring to build one over the MLA's who received payments for Committees that never met, with various adds on the radio this morning. I expect PC's will be targetting conscience rights.

[mnugent]

Redford - In her own class, superb debater. She stayed composed despite the onslaught.

Smith - Said what she needed to say but was not impressive. She had the easiest job.

Mason - He did well but everyone's seen him for so long that he failed to impress.

Sherman - Had a few good lines, but awkward at times. His tendency to call the Liberals the "Sherman Liberals" and the "Sherman tax plan" and the "Sherman (noun)" made me laugh. He threw in that he was a MD and it made him sound arrogant after repeating his name non-stop.

After watching this I'm convinced only Redford has what it takes to be premier.

[JBear]

Yeah I liked the points and platform Sherman showed but I think he is a bit arrogant.
I love Mason and think he personally did OK but I didn't like his platform. If he was head of the Liberal party and the platform they are running now he would get my vote. Right now I'm thinking the lesser of 3 evils right now.

[jstock]

Redford. Raj did the worst.

[KenL]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

Allison
Maison
Smith
Raj

don't mean to be a jerk but,

Alison REDFORD (sp)
BRIAN Mason (sp)
DANIELLE Smith
Raj SHERMAN

nice job, mixing first and last names and misspelling Brian Mason's AND Alison Redford's names

[sundance]

Of course in English you can add ough to pretty much any word as it can sound like anything else... so their names could be
Alisoughn Redfoughd
Briough Masough
Danielle Smoughth
Rough Sherman
Its interesting reading old English how flexible they were with spelling, in the same paragraph a word could be spelled 2 or 3 different ways.

[moahunter]

Seems most papers think Smith won, or alternativley, did enough to ensure victory. Here is the Globe and Mail:

The devastating blow

That goes to Ms. Smith, who appeared poised throughout much of the debate but hit her stride towards the end, culminating in this run-down of Ms. Redford’s record. “She promised a fixed election date then didn’t. She promised she would review then actually seriously consider rescinding those [proposed high-transmission] power lines, then didn’t. She promised she would look into the bullying and intimidation of doctors in the health-care system, and then didn’t. This is what leadership is about. It’s actually saying what you’re going to do, then actually doing it. If you don’t believe that you can do it, then you shouldn’t promise it in the first place. I think that what we’ve seen after six months of Redford leadership is she is the kind of leader who will say anything to get elected – and then when she’s elected, it’s not worth the paper it’s written on.” The line isn’t necessarily truthful – Ms. Redford called in an independent expert panel on the power lines, and accepted its recommendation, and did have Alberta’s Health Quality Council investigate doctor intimidation – but was nonetheless a direct hit on her chief opponent.

The fallout

For Prof. Bratt, it’s simple: “Smith won.” It struck him while driving to coach a lacrosse practice after the debate. “Unless something dramatic happens in the last 10 days, it’s over. I’m sitting there afterwards, driving ... and I’m going: ‘Wildrose is going to win this. The only question is – how big?’ If you lived in this province a long time, it’s a bit of a surreal moment to have it dawn on you that there’s going to be a change in government here.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...2401028/page2/

[Thomas Hinderks]

I find the analysis interesting

I sat with my 20 year old daughter (2nd year poli-sci) and watched the debate while she texted/e-mailed/facebooked with her classmates.

Across the board they perceived Alison Redford as the clear winner (as do I).
Then Mr. Mason, Ms. Smith and all felt Raj Sherman did a poor job.

Best line texted by a student to my daughter during the debate..."why don't they send the men away and let the big girls deal with this". Nasty.

My opinion.

Redford was composed under fire, responded solidly while under fire, got her position across, fessed up to party past errors.

Mason was a solid journeyman politician

Smith inexperienced, unclear and seemed to dodge and weave far too much.

Sherman....

Virtually everyone I have spoken too today that watched the debate are surprised at Smith being painted as the debate winner and the order of performance.

Seems our political experts may be getting out of touch of the rank and file.

How I am voting? Still not sure.

[whynow99]

Not only have the CONS proven themselves to be sneaks and liars over the years, Redford proved herself to be a liar too!!.......when Brian Mason challenged her.....she denied saying it.....Mason reads her quote/statement from the Hansard of the Legislature and she still states that is not true, proves she is a desperate liar. Case closed, Redford should be kicked to the curb. So vote ABC (Anyone But Conservative).

[Thomas Hinderks]

Well the long and short of it to me...

The vast majority of people I know what to see change.

Smith is a reversion to the Klein era with a steadfast support group of former PC's of that vintage and mindset. Great if that is the direction you want to go.

Mason, while I quite like him personally and he is a good journeyman politician, is tied to a party line and policies that are too left for most of us Joe Porkrind types.

Sherman, with the liberals simply doesn't inspire those I talk to across the board.

Redford, most I talk to seem to think the direction she represents is good and likely the right one to follow, but she is tied to a 40+ year legacy of a party being in power with all it's warts.

While some enjoy painting the current PC party as the old time CONS, in fact it's a very different party than 18 months ago with a very different direction.

I think as a leader, for a lot of reasons, Redford would be a solid one.

But the 40+ year legacy is a tough nut to crack as being change.

So who do you vote for?
None of the opposition parties appear to have complete platforms, sure they have the top policies but where is all the mundane stuff? I've dug and made phone call and the information is not being passed on.

Too bad the Alberta Party is still in it's infancy, there is hope for change (real and perceived) in the future.

But this one...Klein era vs a New direction with a poor legacy vs tooo far left for me.

My thoughts

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by possum

don't mean to be a jerk but,

Alison REDFORD (sp)
BRIAN Mason (sp)
DANIELLE Smith
Raj SHERMAN

nice job, mixing first and last names and misspelling Brian Mason's AND Alison Redford's names

Meh I am busy.. I really don't care. If I did I would have got it right.

[edmonton daily photo]

Who is saying Danielle won the debate... I have not heard that at all.. opinions range from, it was pretty equal.. to no one shined.. Sun Media simply proclaims that redford "didn't do it" but they don't say Danielle shined.

[Blueline]

http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=23311

G.D. ! Semi duplicate threads !!~!!

[JamesL]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

Who is saying Danielle won the debate... I have not heard that at all.. opinions range from, it was pretty equal.. to no one shined.. Sun Media simply proclaims that redford "didn't do it" but they don't say Danielle shined.

So, you can measure how well these bozos did based on "what you heard", or you can look at the available polling:

http://www.qr77.com/News/Local/Story.aspx?ID=1685879

An exclusive Ipsos Reid poll, commissioned by QR77 and Global News, shows Danielle Smith as the front-runner after Thursday's debate. 37% of respondents believe the Wildrose leader won the debate. 28% chose PC leader Alison Redford, 13% indicated Raj Sherman and 10% picked Brian Mason. Another 13% didn't know who won. As for some of the other questions asked of the 538 respondents:

Who lost the debate?
31% - Alison Redford
27% - Raj Sherman
16% - Danielle Smith
16% - Brian Mason
10% - Don't Know

How did the debate affect your thoughts on each leader?
Brian Mason - net improvement of 27%
Danielle Smith - net improvement of 10%
Raj Sherman - net improvement of 1%
Alison Redford - net worsening of 15%

[Thomas Hinderks]

So, you can measure how well these bozos did based on "what you heard", or you can look at the available polling:

Well as a grass roots kinda guy I prefer "what I heard" in a lot of cases.

Aside from the gang last night and the usual victims this morning I've talked to around 60 people and none see it the way of the polls.

[moahunter]

^^I agree, like my post number 10, people always think their favourite won. Or someone surveys students / young adults, which again, is sorta silly because students tend to vote left (until they get jobs and realize how much tax hurts). The difference in "who won the debate" polling straight after the event, between EJ and CH, illustrates that as well. Not surprisingly, a more pro WR Calgary, thinks she did better, than anti-WR Edmonton (which voted it a tie).

I also think, as I said above, it takes a few days for "zingers" or similar to take hold. We will have a better idea who won when we see the polls in a day or two. The poll you show doesn't surprise me though, that Smith did best. It also doesn't surprise me, as there are more "lefties" on C2E, that the poll on here is otherwise.

[JamesL]

Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks

Well as a grass roots kinda guy I prefer "what I heard" in a lot of cases.

Aside from the gang last night and the usual victims this morning I've talked to around 60 people and none see it the way of the polls.

That really speaks to a privileging of anecdotal data/personal observation over data that applies basic statistical principles of sampling. Not a good way of finding out "who won", IMO.

That's not to say that you should only rely on one pollster or poll; but, unfortunately, it's the best we have on this particular question. (And no, web polls on the Journal or Herald's sites do not count.)

[Old Dawg]

Did anyone understand Sherman's reference to Alabama? I'm not sure if he was concerned with human rights issues or the Federal constitution?
As he left it hanging, it might also have been a misconceived racial slur.

It could also may refer to having referendums on contentious issues.

At any rate I don't care for baffle gab when I am attempting to understand each political position on an election.

No points for the Doctor on that one.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Old Dawg

Did anyone understand Sherman's reference to Alabama? I'm not sure if he was concerned with human rights issues or the Federal constitution?
As he left it hanging, it might also have been a misconceived racial slur.

I think most people got the point, that he is saying Alberta is not a bible belt state like the Southern US. It was a good line I thought.

[Alex.L]

It definitely got my attention.

I did enjoy when Redford brought up California and all of the referendum issues they're having down there. I think Mason brought it up too.

[Old Dawg]

Originally Posted by moahunter

I think most people got the point, that he is saying Alberta is not a bible belt state like the Southern US. It was a good line I thought.

If that's the case then he was really out of context with the rest of his speech.
When time is so precious it would be wise to be more lucid.

[Thomas Hinderks]

That really speaks to a privileging of anecdotal data/personal observation over data that applies basic statistical principles of sampling. Not a good way of finding out "who won", IMO.

The beauty of the situation is we are all entitled to our opinion.

The issue in many cases is who and where people were consulted as well as what and how the questions are asked.

The nice part of doing something drastic like talking to people is you get the full picture of not just their opinion, but how they formed it.

Moa

I agree, like my post number 10, people always think their favourite won. Or someone surveys students / young adults, which again, is sorta silly because students tend to vote left

Which adds to the interest...for the students involved are "Left Leaning" (with the exclusion of mine) and love the tuition drop promises, yet still picked Redford.

[Turtle]

The laugh out loud momment of the debate was when Raj ask Redford if she will resign from this election for some reason.

Keep me laughing Raj.

[Jasper]

I could see, given the way the campaign has been going, is that the PC's could pick up some seats in Edmonton. Just because people would rather vote PC to avoid WRA.
I could see Dorword taking Gold Bar
It might be tight in Edmonton Centre
Brian Mason should get in Highlands
Riverview might go PC
Notley might lose Strathcona given the no-meet issue. (R. Pannu held this area as a conservative for a while)

[Hull534]

Raj pannu as a conservative ?

Raj was against the machine!

[KJ2007]

I am at a loss as to how Ms. Smith could be declared 'the winner' of this debate. Some of these polls are unscientific (e.g. Dave Rutherford's station had one that has been quoted widely). Do you really believe it would say anything other than a Smith win? The poll was likely taken before the debate.

That said, I am more troubled by this cult of leadership that has arisen in this election. We shouldn't be making our voting choices solely on who the leader is (although that will definitely be part of my decision). Who are the candidates in the riding? Are we overlooking some potential outstanding MLAs soley because of which party banner they are running under? Mr. Walters in Rutherford looks like someone who would be a wonderful representative. Mr. Khan in Riverview. Mr. Sherman in Meadowlark should likely be reelected as should Ms. Notley. There are PCs who deserve to be elected and yes, perhaps, even some WA candidates (though I am not sure who at this point).

[JamesL]

Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks

The issue in many cases is who and where people were consulted as well as what and how the questions are asked.

Those are always good things to know, Tom. Of course, Ipsos Reid is not some offbrand/fly-by-night polling operation; they make their question wording and sample breakdown available for you to dig into online here. So, sure, you can stack up Ipsos' sample against the Tom Hinderks Poll (n=60; sampling details and methodology unknown) and decide which you prefer. That's the beauty of free choice.

[jagators63]

as for me, all is lose why? for one example, before election day, all 4 candiates promise something that they will going to do it. after election, one party won the election , suddenly , they didn't do as they promised the voters ?? why should I believe them before election day ??

that is why I don't even bother watching debate on tv because I knew they will break the promise on few things along the way after the election.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by JamesL

Those are always good things to know, Tom. Of course, Ipsos Reid is not some offbrand/fly-by-night polling operation; they make their question wording and sample breakdown available for you to dig into online here. So, sure, you can stack up Ipsos' sample against the Tom Hinderks Poll (n=60; sampling details and methodology unknown) and decide which you prefer. That's the beauty of free choice.

The poll was commissioned by Global News and QR77, outlets that may as well be breaking out the pompoms and cheering on the Wild Rose.

For all we know its their audience that was polled.

Your link of the poll provides nothing of the methodology used in the poll and the latest link above is a mislink which is clearly directing to something different than intended.

So we have nothing on number of people in the poll, how it was conducted, where it was conducted, using what medium, no statistical framework whatsoever.

[Hull534]

Just looking at the results of our poll and comparing it with the results of the official polling organisation IPSOS REID. It clearly demonstrates the disconnect we Edmontonians at this board have with the province as a whole , or vice versa.

[whynow99]

Yes as stated, this poll if very thin on evidence.........which just shows how desperate the CONS are to help Alison Redfraud!! Vote ABC (Anyone But Conservative)

[KC]

Originally Posted by moahunter

Seems most papers think Smith won, or alternativley, did enough to ensure victory. Here is the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...2401028/page2/

Newspapers can think?

[Cal76]

Change is inevitable. The old PC party is gone!
Redford represents a moderate centrist socially-liberal, fiscally conservative viewpoint- us small-l liberals can identify with her. D. Smith is a complex character- while she is libertarian and centre-right, her party has given right-wing nuts like Byfield and Rob Anders too much power.
The luckiest guy might well be B. Mason. He'll never win power, but he's the only one who's absolutely sure of winning his own seat and increasing the party's totals (from 2 seats now to 4-6 ).

[JamesL]

Originally Posted by Replacement

Your link of the poll provides nothing of the methodology used in the poll and the latest link above is a mislink which is clearly directing to something different than intended.

My mistake -- somehow an incorrect link was pasted in. Here's the correct link. Full press release available here.

[overoceans]

Originally Posted by Cal76

while she is libertarian and centre-right, her party has given right-wing nuts like Byfield and Rob Anders too much power.

Yes, people are kidding themselves if they think that a guy like Byfield, who's considerably more than just a bit-player in the Wildrose, is gonna be content to sit in the legislature and ignore SoCon issues like abortion and gay-rights.

If I understand Smith correctly, she's assuring us that they won't hold referenda on any issue that the courts say they can't. But does that mean that if the courts DO say they can have a vote, they'll have the vote?

And is it true what I've read about Wildrosers not participating in all-candiate forums? If it's true, I can understand why. You wouldn't want people in the audience going up to the mike and saying "So Mr. Byfield, do you still stand by your Alberta Report editorial where you said that AIDS is the gay plague?"

The fact is, the other major parties don't have anywhere near the same number of ideological skeletons in their closet that Wildrose does.

[jagators63]

my advice , never believe in the polls, only believe what candiates speak to the public on their platforms.

[overoceans]

Persuant to my question earlier, from a quick google, it does seem that at least some Wildrose candidates have participated in forums. Maybe I read incorrect information somewhere.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by JamesL

My mistake -- somehow an incorrect link was pasted in. Here's the correct link. Full press release available here.

Thank you sir.

The poll actually has several noted limitations.

1)Disproportionate Calgary respondents polled which then requires some weighting factor to be applied which is not described adequately. Nor why there were 50 more Calgarians than Edmontonians polled. Yes, Calgary has a larger population, but not by that magnitude. Calgary had far more respondents than they should with respect to the province as a whole. Thereby reflecting Calgary views.

2)538 respondents is just poor. Its lazy, low cost, and does not properly reflect our growing population. Polling firms were polling at least 1000 people decades ago when this province had a fraction of its current population. Quoting similar margins of error.

3) This is NOT a random poll. Its not at all a representative poll of Albertans. Its a selected Poll of some respondents that watched the global/Corus telecast and who were preselected online respondents. Theres so many biasing factors there I don't know where to start.

4)Finally, and this should be evident across polls, but I note that Ipsos Reid is often using the same or similar margin of error stats regardless of amount of respondents polled, weighting factors, geographical variables etc. I really question whether their quoted margin of error is even statistically accurate. I'm certain given the huge non random flaws in this poll that it isn't at all statistically representative.

Why do people just immediately trust legitimacy of poll based on an "Ipsos Reid" stamp? Or trust that a poll commissioned by media outlets with noted WC affiliation is operatively unbiased? This poll is invalid at least as its being stated. It is not at all representative in any way of general Albertans views of who won the debate. Albeit the main fault in misreporting the poll findings resides within the MSM but Ipsos Reid knows full well how the results will be reported. Its irresponsible for them to use such flimsy methodology.

[JamesL]

Originally Posted by Replacement

3) This is NOT a random poll. Its not at all a representative poll of Albertans. Its a selected Poll of some respondents that watched the global/Corus telecast and who were preselected online respondents. Theres so many biasing factors there I don't know where to start.

Out of curiosity, how do you come to the conclusion that the respondents were only those who watched the Global/Corus telecast? There is no such indication in the release accompanying the poll that that was the case.

Also, an n=538 sample is not unreasonable for Alberta. Post-debate snap polls of the United States of America during the 2008 Presidential election, for instance, had samples of 620 respondents (CNN/Opinion Research) and 638 (CBS/Knowledge Networks).

[jagators63]

Minority gov't is most likely on Election day and either PC or WR could win the race.

[JamesL]

In any event, it's hard to believe that I'm the guy defending the contention that Smith won the debate -- I despise the Wildrose.

[Sonic Death Monkey]

In an age of do-not-call lists, answering machines, call display and smartphones, how many people actually respond to these polls anyway?

[Alex.L]

Everybody I know just hangs up on those calls, so I'm inclined to take them with a grain of salt.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by JamesL

Out of curiosity, how do you come to the conclusion that the respondents were only those who watched the Global/Corus telecast? There is no such indication in the release accompanying the poll that that was the case.

Also, an n=538 sample is not unreasonable for Alberta. Post-debate snap polls of the United States of America during the 2008 Presidential election, for instance, had samples of 620 respondents (CNN/Opinion Research) and 638 (CBS/Knowledge Networks).

Its specified in the link you made:

These are the results of an Ipsos Reid/Global TV/CORUS online survey of 538 Albertans who watched the April 12th Alberta Leaders’ Debate. Respondents were pre-recruited from Ipsos Reid’s online household panel to watch the debate and participate in the survey immediately afterwards.

As far as the samples cited in the US what is occuring in my estimation in general is less than optimal polling. Less random, less representative, less objective, and independent. Its part of a wholescale devolution that is occurring where MSM are feeding us information and data that is incomplete. That is contrived. Where the populace, for whatever reason, isn't demanding better on either side of the border.

Aside from that, and more as general comments, I'm alarmed that not only do increasingly affiliated news outlets or TV conglomerates obtain rightholding to the provincial debate, but they now also closely control the content, questions asked, and how the debate actually proceeds. Followed by commisioning a poll of their device, of their specific audience, and then mislabeling that as reflecting the opinion of all Albertans. Instead of specific subset Albertans.

The MSM more and more are positioning themselves as agents of propaganda that have departed from their mandated societal purpose of being the publics helpful eyes to the world. Now media conglomerates are joined with political special interests and don't just report the news, they make the news, they influence the content, what political issues are, what exact questions get asked in debates(it used to be that the questions were phoned in from the public, when did MSM start self determining what the relevant questions are in a political debate?)

Again the worst moment of the night imo was Vassy Kapelos, of Global Edmonton, asking the reigning premier of Alberta how she could expect that the citizens of Alberta could ever trust her. I'm still incensed at that derisive labeling question, the obvious undermining intent in it, and directed by a reporter representative of a media outlet with potential vested interest.

Again this isn't the MSM reporting the news, its the MSM trying to BE the news and impact something as profound as election results. For shame.

We should all be offended how often this occurs in this nation. I know I'm supposed to be desensitized by now..

[JamesL]

Originally Posted by Replacement

Its specified in the link you made:

Uh, where? You seem to be concluding that because Global/Corus sponsored the poll, that it means that the respondents all watched their telecast -- which doesn't make much sense.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by JamesL

Uh, where? You seem to be concluding that because Global/Corus sponsored the poll, that it means that the respondents all watched their telecast -- which doesn't make much sense.

The DIRECT verbatim quote above is directly pulled from your link. Its at the bottom of the linked article.

Again, from your link: These are the results of an Ipsos Reid/Global TV/CORUS online survey of 538 Albertans who watched the April 12th Alberta Leaders’ Debate. Respondents were pre-recruited from Ipsos Reid’s online household panel to watch the debate and participate in the survey immediately afterwards


I'm not sure how to make this any more clear James.

Just to be sure.

These are the results of an Ipsos Reid/Global TV/CORUS online survey of 538 Albertans who watched the April 12th Alberta Leaders’ Debate. Respondents were pre-recruited from Ipsos Reid’s online household panel to watch the debate and participate in the survey immediately afterwards.


These are the results of an Ipsos Reid/Global TV/CORUS online survey of 538 Albertans who watched the April 12th Alberta Leaders’ Debate. Respondents were pre-recruited from Ipsos Reid’s online household panel to watch the debate and participate in the survey immediately afterwards.

[JamesL]

I think you are making an error of interpretation there.

[SP59]

What is the margin of error for a sample size of 123 not so random people out of a population of at least one million? What did Ipsos Reid say there margin of error was? In short they didn't say what it was for this poll.

Here is what they did say:

"These are the results of an Ipsos Reid/Global TV/CORUS online survey of 538 Albertans who watched the April 12th Alberta Leaders’ Debate. Respondents were pre-recruited from Ipsos Reid’s online household panel to watch the debate and participate in the survey immediately afterwards. The data were statistically weighted to ensure that the sample characteristics reflect the actual Alberta voting population across variables such as age, sex, region and past voting behaviours. A survey with an unweighted probability sample of this size and a 100% response rate would have an estimated margin of error of ±4.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. The margin of error would be larger within regions and for other sub-groupings of the survey population."

From this link.

The data was weighted which will distort the results and increase the margin of error, pre-recruiting respondents should do the same. The margin of error in sub-groups is larger. What would be nice to know is what the margin of error for the rural voting sub group. 123 people out of 1,272,000 doesn't seem like a great sample size.

[Komrade]

(im voting NDP) but this is how I saw it

D.Smith
A. Redford
R. Sherman
B. Mason

Brian didnt attack enough. Wasnt hungry. Wasnt asking hard questions. Stuck to the old retoric of 'they are right wing and want private hospitals'. Thats literally all I got out of him.

None the less I think the majority of voters minds are made up before the debate.

[lat]

Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks

Well the long and short of it to me...

The vast majority of people I know what to see change.

Smith is a reversion to the Klein era with a steadfast support group of former PC's of that vintage and mindset. Great if that is the direction you want to go.

Mason, while I quite like him personally and he is a good journeyman politician, is tied to a party line and policies that are too left for most of us Joe Porkrind types.

Sherman, with the liberals simply doesn't inspire those I talk to across the board.

Redford, most I talk to seem to think the direction she represents is good and likely the right one to follow, but she is tied to a 40+ year legacy of a party being in power with all it's warts.

While some enjoy painting the current PC party as the old time CONS, in fact it's a very different party than 18 months ago with a very different direction.

I think as a leader, for a lot of reasons, Redford would be a solid one.

But the 40+ year legacy is a tough nut to crack as being change.

So who do you vote for?
None of the opposition parties appear to have complete platforms, sure they have the top policies but where is all the mundane stuff? I've dug and made phone call and the information is not being passed on.

Too bad the Alberta Party is still in it's infancy, there is hope for change (real and perceived) in the future.

But this one...Klein era vs a New direction with a poor legacy vs tooo far left for me.

My thoughts

That's basically the exact same thought process as my own...

[howie]

Here's the latest WR religious sicko/nutbar:
http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...b=EdmontonHome

[Gemini]

Redford- too wooden, cold, un-inspiring
Smith - Smart, approachable, believable.
Sherman - needs more experience at public speaking, seems genuine
Mason - always seems to have done his homework, sincere.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by Gemini

Redford- too wooden, cold, un-inspiring
Smith - Smart, approachable, believable.
Sherman - needs more experience at public speaking, seems genuine
Mason - always seems to have done his homework, sincere.

Not sure how you get that feeling about Smith. I think on the surface she tries to employ that facade but peel the onion at all and opinions change.

Just on a personal level one of the things that I've noted thats interesting is that I've been able to convince people I know of the shortcomings in Smith and the WR. People that had a cursory opinion but upon hearing more information changed their tune. This is rarely the experience in politics where people develop a passion about a candidate or party. Smiths hold on supporters is tenuous. She gets a lot of casual support from people that really haven't bothered to dig at all.

That worries me though in this province..

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Replacement

Not sure how you get that feeling about Smith. I think on the surface she tries to employ that facade but peel the onion at all and opinions change.

I don't agree with you here. I think we have a difference in social style between Redford and Smith. Smith is expressive (or perhaps driving), Redford is analytical. People can accept analytical types as back office supporters (a good example was Paul Martin, although unlike Redford he seemed to make the right decisions), but they don't generally make for good political leaders.

[JamesL]

Yeah. We elect people to lead, not to read.

[Nemic]

I thought I'd never vote PC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPR84Gn1d9I