Actually, jury is still out on efficacy of Attack ads against Trudeau

Hmm, this is a bit embarrassing. Yesterday I posted that the Ipsos Reid poll commissioned by postmedia and CTV demonstrated that the attack ads were not working. The word I used was emphatically not working. Well I have to climb down a little (a lot) from that statement. I argued that because the sample that had seen the attack ads had significantly higher Liberal voting intentions it showed that the attack ads were actually backfiring on the CPC. Acrtually, the evidence does not suport that conclusion. The attack ads were presumably targetted at Liberal voters in the first place, given the fact that attack ads are intended to suppress support of the intended victim. That is presumably the reason why those CPC media buys were concentrated in the Maritimes, and Ontario in the first place. The proper conclusion to draw was that the CPC were effective in their targeting. To determine if the ads were effective or not, we would need to see what happened to Trudeaus support amongst that subset of the population that saw the ads.  One interesting conclusion that may still be supported by that data is the migration of support from the NDP to the Liberals in the sample of those people who had seen the attack ads prior to being surveyed:

-“Wright says the numbers indicate the ads may have actually helped the Liberals by having a handful of New Democrats “switch their soft support from the NDP to soft support for Justin Trudeau.”

Anyway, I guess we shall be reduced to reading opinion poll tea-leaves still with respect to the efficacy of attack ads, unless someone wants to spend a whack of money on a publicly released poll or survey examining the question properly. At the end of the day, that particulr Ipsos poll is just another voting intention story. Good news for Liberals no doubt, but nothing quite so earth shattering as proof that Trudeau is negating a major attack ad campaign.

Vote for this post at Progrexssive Bloggers!


3 Responses

  1. I was thinking about my own motivations in my early 20s. Reading Chomsky depressed me a bit (now some of his lefter foreign policies and economics depress me the other way); learning some politicians in developed world don’t have utlitarianism as a mean or ends. I was fine after figuring out for myself technologies and time issues that tent towards utilitarianism.
    People do need to believe in something better. I suggest a better world for kids or grandkids rather than our grandkid’s grandparents or Literal interpretations of holy texts. God wouldn’t be able to give stupid historical times educated people a sound enough grounding in engineering and philosophy to give perfect 21st century advice, back thens. He could’ve if he greatly altered a person’s personal identity. And spoken word averted some prosecution. We need some change to get safe robots that can make a few town-sized colonies; enough to make Earth a bit redundant. The best quality-of-living tends to be moderation of a diversity of enjoyed states, and we will need engineers. Here, Trudeau’s message is more positive. I like the NDP tax corporate tax rate rise as it can fund all Party Platforms and it gives corporations some negotiating space on a carbon tax/cap.

  2. For miracles, I ascribe to hallucinations, aliens, parallel universes using interference technologies, and only then some sort of interefering god at base. Here, you might want to promote happy religions for the young, the dying, the dumb, the even-worse-human-capital-individuals-than-literally-religious…but we will need some rational people for a while and they can’t do things like stop AGW with so many brainwashed. But you start from this world and the religious groups do some good charity. I view gaining progressive individuals as a ladder and the religions provide some good bottom rungs. But they can’t do things like fund bed bug killing R+D, so are inefficient a bit as an NGO.

  3. …but with Trudeau you can look FW to a more scientific generation than the boomers. Petro and geothermal funded my carbon sequester idea. I do think we will have to “pick favs” in the future as too many risks to civilization grow over time under flatter taxes. The growing Big Brother oversight only works to a point before you get administrative problems like Bible Thumper foreign policies and Neocon finance policies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: