Red C Poll

conorh91 · 22-02-2015 02:09AM

Bambi wrote: »

Labour actually getting 7-8%, doubt it. The margin of error for a low percentage like that is significant

How much is it? 2% or so? How is that significant?

It never ceases to amaze that so many people believe 'margin of error' means that 'anywhere in this range'.

alaimacerc · 22-02-2015 02:16AM

conorh91 wrote: »

How much is it? 2% or so?

3% for the standard sample size of 1000.

It never ceases to amaze that so many people believe 'margin of error' means that 'anywhere in this range'.

That's exactly what it means. Or to be more precise: it means "probably" that. One time in twenty the error is going to be larger. By the very definition of what a confidence interval is.

That's in addition to any methodological error or systemic bias that might add to the sample error per se.

Muahahaha · 22-02-2015 02:22AM

the groutch wrote: »

the leader popularity ratings again show that Adams needs to step down as leader before the next election, if not sooner.

You've been beating that same drum for some time now while your blinkers refuse to see how he has led the party from polling numbers of around 2% to some 21%-25% today.

Anytime I hear the 'Adams is holding back Sinn Fein and he needs to resign' mantra I always do :rolleyes:

Gerry Adams has led the fastest growth of any party in recent times and yet people call for him to resign? Somehow I doubt he is listening to those people and the mantra is getting pretty old now, especially as the polls suggest quite the opposite.

Dyr · 22-02-2015 02:28AM

conorh91 wrote: »

How much is it? 2% or so? How is that significant?

It never ceases to amaze that so many people believe 'margin of error' means 'anywhere in this range'.

it never cease to amaze me when the like of your good self make up beliefs and then attribute them to others.

RED C poll MOE is usually 3% for 1000 respondents. All of labour's gains and losses are within that MOE, that's not good when you're scraping along the sea bed in single figures, IMO they need to be up around 10% consistently to avoid becoming irrelvant.

conorh91 · 22-02-2015 02:46AM

Bambi wrote: »

RED C poll MOE is usually 3% for 1000 respondents.

And...? Do you know what that means?

alaimacerc wrote: »

That's exactly what it means.

No, it isn't. It means that the stated figure is the most probable. It means that a deviation within the range becomes increasingly unlikely. It does not mean "anywhere in this range". So if the poll result is 7% with a margin of 3%, 7% is the most likely outcome, and 9.5% is improbable.

Ren2k7 · 22-02-2015 02:49AM

Bambi wrote: »

Fianna Fail may stage a minor recovery also, memories are short and people really dislike this government.

I'm not so sure. FF have been hovering around the high teens/low twenties mark for some time now and it's looking like they'll return a similar number of TD's based on these poll numbers. FG/Lab may be despised but so too is FF. They did such a number on this country that it will probably be many years before people start trusting them again. Rather like SF where older voters distrust them but younger voters who never knew anything of the Troubles or SF's involvement in them are willing to give the Shinners a chance.

FF have pretty much lost this generation, they will have to wait many years for a new breed of voters to emerge before they can hope to gain back power.

Though ideally they would do everyone a favour and dissolve themselves like what their former coalition partners the PD's did.

Ren2k7 · 22-02-2015 03:03AM

alaimacerc wrote: »

They do indeed, that's bang on. And the electorate generally looks to elect another bunch of incompetents on the basis that'll it'll promise to do the same thing, only magically this time it'll work out flawlessly. Hence the current "what we need is yet another redundant centre-right party or three" nonsense. Shine up same some conservative slogans, move the order of the words around a little, put some new -- but not too new! -- faces on them, and it'll be grand. Votáil Nua Progressive Fine Fail Ctrl-Alt-Delete Independent! Same policies, now with added "not voting for the same shower as last time" salve for the conscience!

It's the Irish way. FF fecked up! Vote in FG. FG fecked up! Vote back in FF! FF fecked up! Vote back in FG.......on so on.

Muahahaha wrote: »

You've been beating that same drum for some time now while your blinkers refuse to see how he has led the party from polling numbers of around 2% to some 21%-25% today.

Anytime I hear the 'Adams is holding back Sinn Fein and he needs to resign' mantra I always do :rolleyes:

Gerry Adams has led the fastest growth of any party in recent times and yet people call for him to resign? Somehow I doubt he is listening to those people and the mantra is getting pretty old now, especially as the polls suggest quite the opposite.

In fairness old Grizzly has been at this craic for some time now. And yes, he's led his party to enormous success: in govt at Stormont, leading what can really be described as the true opposition in the Dail (FF still have credibility issues) and nearly matching FG in the polls. But if SF emerges back on the opposition benches come the next election (which is probable) then I feel it may be time for Adams to step aside and let the anointed one from Dublin Central take over.

That won't be a sign of failure on his part, he should be proud of where he's led SF, from pariahs and outcasts right through to being a key and influential part of the political establishment.

alaimacerc · 22-02-2015 03:03AM

conorh91 wrote: »

No, it isn't. It means that the stated figure is the most probable. It means that a deviation within the range becomes increasingly unlikely. It does not mean "anywhere in this range". So if the poll result is 7% with a margin of 3%, 7% is the most likely outcome, and 9.5% is improbable.

Yes, it is. You're conflating "anywhere in the range" (which is entirely true), with "uniformly distributed across the range" -- which no-one said (until you brought it up right then), no-one thinks, and is indeed not true.

It's extremely woolly to describe the outer part of the CI as "improbable". For normally distributed data, 95% confidence is a +/- two-sigma interval. Fully 32% of the probability distribution is outside of one sigma. If you're angling for a job at CERN, don't be talking "improbable" until you're passed five sigmas...

alaimacerc · 22-02-2015 03:06AM

Ren2k7 wrote: »

It's the Irish way. FF fecked up! Vote in FG. FG fecked up! Vote back in FF! FF fecked up! Vote back in FG.......on so on.

Yes, but my point in that we're currently in the mode of "FG have fecked up most recent, and FF have fecked up so egregiously we can't go straight back to them, either".

"Solution"? Vote for "anyone but FF and FG" -- but ideally, someone as exactly like FF and FG as possible.

conorh91 · 22-02-2015 03:22AM

alaimacerc wrote: »

Yes, it is. You're conflating "anywhere in the range" (which is entirely true), with "uniformly distributed across the range" --

Definition of 'anywhere': In or at any place

To say or imply that FG are currently polling in, or at any margin 3% on either side of 24% implies that there is an equal chance of FG securing 24% as 27%, simply because it is within their margin of error. This belies the fact that the margin of error contains outcomes that become less and less likely as they deviate from the centre.

Therefore, the poll does not place any party "in or at any place" within the margin of error.

The 'margin of error' is a term that is widely and deliberately misused

Dyr · 22-02-2015 11:29AM

conorh91 wrote: »

And...? Do you know what that means?

Might want to ease up on that internet hard case persona there chief

Ren2k7 · 22-02-2015 02:42PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

Yes, but my point in that we're currently in the mode of "FG have fecked up most recent, and FF have fecked up so egregiously we can't go straight back to them, either".

"Solution"? Vote for "anyone but FF and FG" -- but ideally, someone as exactly like FF and FG as possible.

Yeah, we seem to have reached peak FF/FG and are now desperately looking for someone else to replace the two. Hence why SF are performing well in the polls. FG/FF/Lab have lost the trust of the people, and SF are capitalising on that lack of trust in the traditional parties. But ironically enough SF, for so long out in the political wilderness and decried as terrorists and far left loonies are now becoming part of that very establishment that mocked and ostracised them.

Nodin · 22-02-2015 03:53PM

Heard Reilly on the radio earlier. Clear emphatic no on coalition with SF, got a bit evasive with regard to FF.

Ren2k7 · 22-02-2015 04:00PM

Nodin wrote: »

Heard Reilly on the radio earlier. Clear emphatic no on coalition with SF, got a bit evasive with regard to FF.

It's funny hearing all this pre election bargaining going on. It's all a load of rubbish, everything will be on the table after the election, you can be guaranteed of that.

Iwasfrozen · 22-02-2015 08:08PM

Ren2k7 wrote: »

It's funny hearing all this pre election bargaining going on. It's all a load of rubbish, everything will be on the table after the election, you can be guaranteed of that.

If FG jump into bed with SF I will never vote FG again, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

ezra_pound · 22-02-2015 08:14PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If FG jump into bed with SF I will never vote FG again, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Yes. I agree with this.

I find it hard to countenance that they would actually do this, though.

Maybe they're trying to remind the electorate that sf probably won't be as radical as they claim if they actually had the option of destroying this country.

By implying that a coalition of the two is in any way conceivable they're underlying the fact that sf in power and sf in opposition are two very different realities.

Baggy Trousers · 22-02-2015 08:20PM

Nodin wrote: »

Heard Reilly on the radio earlier. Clear emphatic no on coalition with SF, got a bit evasive with regard to FF.

Enda said no to FF. Could come back to haunt him even though it would be a disgraceful move in my opinion though nothing shocks me anymore.

Ren2k7 · 22-02-2015 09:05PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If FG jump into bed with SF I will never vote FG again, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I'm sure the feeling among SF voters is mutual.

Quin_Dub · 23-02-2015 09:49AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If FG jump into bed with SF I will never vote FG again, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I'm sure the feeling among SF voters is mutual.

The only thing that SF have ruled out so far is that they have said they will not go into to Government as the junior partner...

If they hold to that , then they will not be in government as they will not be the largest party , by some margin...

Godge · 23-02-2015 12:53PM

Ren2k7 wrote: »

It's funny hearing all this pre election bargaining going on. It's all a load of rubbish, everything will be on the table after the election, you can be guaranteed of that.

I don't think so.

In all probability, there will be a FG-led government after the next election. Hopefully if will be FG/Labour/Green but I doubt the Greens will get enough (any?) to be in the reckoning. That will mean FG/Labour/Others with the Ross or the Lucinda grouping providing the others.

The only realistic alternative government is a SF-led coalition with FF. That requires two things, first SF is the larger party of the two. Despite the poll figures, that may not happen because of transfer toxicity and getting the vote out. Second, FF would have to agree to go in with SF. If that combination is a possibility, then FF will also have a choice to go in with FG.

Zubeneschamali · 23-02-2015 01:02PM

Godge wrote: »

That will mean FG/Labour/Others with the Ross or the Lucinda grouping providing the others.

Lucinda's gang are FG, just with even less abortion. If it is still Enda in charge, he won't like it, but he'll sign them up.

If it is someone else, Lucinda will be back in the party.

Rightwing · 23-02-2015 01:14PM

Listening to Noonan on Saturday, FG/LAB/Inds would seem to be their preferred choice.

Quin_Dub · 23-02-2015 01:21PM

Rightwing wrote: »

Listening to Noonan on Saturday, FG/LAB/Inds would seem to be their preferred choice.

Think it's the most obvious pathway..

FG/LAB landing somewhere mid/high 60's needing another 8-10 seats , but maybe only getting 6-7 but that will likely be enough for minority Government..The other side will not be able to get themselves together to mount a valid opposition proposal..

Baggy Trousers · 23-02-2015 01:25PM

Rightwing wrote: »

Listening to Noonan on Saturday, FG/LAB/Inds would seem to be their preferred choice.

I think you might be right. It will never last 5 years though.

Godge · 23-02-2015 01:28PM

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I think you might be right. It will never last 5 years though.

Are you telling me that Shane Ross will be prepared to walk away from the big car and the big job and the sense of self-importance being finally justified?

Ren2k7 · 23-02-2015 01:28PM

Godge wrote: »

I don't think so.

In all probability, there will be a FG-led government after the next election. Hopefully if will be FG/Labour/Green but I doubt the Greens will get enough (any?) to be in the reckoning. That will mean FG/Labour/Others with the Ross or the Lucinda grouping providing the others.

The only realistic alternative government is a SF-led coalition with FF. That requires two things, first SF is the larger party of the two. Despite the poll figures, that may not happen because of transfer toxicity and getting the vote out. Second, FF would have to agree to go in with SF. If that combination is a possibility, then FF will also have a choice to go in with FG.

Their wouldn't be the numbers for a SF/FF coalition, even if the two agreed to go into government together. And given the toxic stench that still emanates from the FFers it's unlikely the SF rank and file would agree to such a move. On a good day SF will be lucky to hit the mid 30's and I suspect the party may have already peaked in the polls at this stage. If FF manage their vote strategy a bit better in 2016 they could probably increase their seat numbers despite being roughly the same in the polls as their FPV in 2011.

Though conceivably you could see a SF/FF/Lab coalition but that's a very big if. My money is on a FG/Lab government with some sort of Gregory type deals with a handful of Indos and/or maybe some sort of pact with the Lucinda rebels post election to get them a slim majority. Whatever the result the Indos will be key to forming the next government and I fear we may see a return to pork barrel gombeenism that typified the Bertie years and his sucking up to Healy Rae and Lowry, amongst others. Such is Ireland.

Ren2k7 · 23-02-2015 01:31PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Think it's the most obvious pathway..

FG/LAB landing somewhere mid/high 60's needing another 8-10 seats , but maybe only getting 6-7 but that will likely be enough for minority Government..The other side will not be able to get themselves together to mount a valid opposition proposal..

A FG led minority govt could be viable, especially if Martin agreed to some sort of Tallaght Strategy of their own with Kenny and backed him on a case by case basis.

Baggy Trousers · 23-02-2015 01:33PM

Godge wrote: »

Are you telling me that Shane Ross will be prepared to walk away from the big car and the big job and the sense of self-importance being finally justified?

I wouldn't even trust Labour in a 2nd term. They will get such a thrashing in 2016 (34 to 14 perhaps) that they will go into government in complete shock. The "grass roots" wont allow them to deviate from their promises and they will pick any significant issue to pull out of govt in an attempt to regain some honour/credibility.

Ren2k7 · 23-02-2015 01:35PM

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I wouldn't even trust Labour in a 2nd term. They will get such a thrashing in 2016 (34 to 14 perhaps) that they will go into government in complete shock. The "grass roots" wont allow them to deviate from their promises and they will pick any significant issue to pull out of govt in an attempt to regain some honour/credibility.

Labour would be secretly delighted even with 14. I wouldn't be surprised if party chiefs are preparing themselves for a parliamentary party in the single digits after the next election.

Godge · 23-02-2015 01:45PM

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I wouldn't even trust Labour in a 2nd term. They will get such a thrashing in 2016 (34 to 14 perhaps) that they will go into government in complete shock. The "grass roots" wont allow them to deviate from their promises and they will pick any significant issue to pull out of govt in an attempt to regain some honour/credibility.

They will need to get past the local elections to get fresh new candidates for a general election. That would give the government 3 to 3 and a half years.

Red C Poll

Comments