A Response to Ipsos Reid, Part III

This is Part III in a three part series.
For Part I, click here.  For Part II, click here.

A Response to Ipsos Reid, Part III: Comparing Ipsos Reid to the other polling firms using 2 methods and with control tests.

In Part I of the Paulitics response to Ipsos Reid, I showed two graphs of the level of support given to the Conservative and New Democratic Parties in all polls conducted in 2009 by all polling firms.

As you can see below, the graphs tell a startling tale of just how radically out of step Ipsos Reid’s estimations of the Conservative and New Democratic Parties seem to be when compared to other polling firms.  I asked Mr. Wright to explain these data as I’m sure we would all be very interested in learning why we are seeing these trends.  So far, the response has been:  Crickets.  Nothing.  Deafening silence.

2009 Analysis 2
2009 Analysis 3

Now, a quick disclaimer:  As I’ve mentioned before, these graphs don’t necessarily mean that Ipsos Reid has bad data.  What these graphs mean is that either every single other polling firm in the country on average has bad data or Ipsos Reid has bad data.  As always, I invite my readers to critically consider for themselves what Occam’s razor can tell us about this impasse.

Now, to be fair to Ipsos Reid, I started thinking about possible explanations for these graphs since Mr. Wright didn’t seem keen to offer his own explanations.  One thing I noticed was that I was using the overall average of all polls conducted by all firms in 2009 and then calculating an overall average as if the movement up and down of the Conservative and New Democratic Parties wasn’t a factor. (Mr. Wright was doing this too, but keep in mind we’re being charitable here).

This method could possibly be a flawed method if, for instance, polling firm “x” released a whole slew of polls in January when Party “A” was enjoying high levels of support from all polling firms and then polling firm “x” didn’t release a poll in early February when Party “A” was down in support.  Taking an overall average without taking into account differences over time could thus yield a favourable or an unfavourable view of polling firm “x”.

For instance, if we used this methodology in the hypothetical example of the “Purple Party” described below, we would wrongly conclude that polling firm “x” grossly over-estimated the support of the “Purple Party” when in fact, they look to be more or less right on the money.

2009 Analysis 10
So, I decided to analyse every 2009 Ipsos Reid poll against the 3 polls conducted before and after so that we’re taking into account what’s happening in party support right then and there and not several months earlier when things might have been different.  I then calculated each 7 poll grouping’s standard deviation so that I could then calculate something called a “z-score” for each Ipsos Reid poll.  For those of you not conversant in z-scores don’t worry, I have also calculated the “z-score percentile” as an easy way to understand what’s going on in each of the polls.

The way this works is that if something is exactly average, it would be in the 50th percentile (because 50% is right in the middle).  If something is extremely unlikely at one end of the spectrum, you’ll get a very very low number (like something being in the 5th or 6th percentile) and conversely something extremely unlikely at the other end of the spectrum, you’ll get a very very high number (like something being in the 96th or 97th percentile).  So the name of the game here is that Ipsos Reid wants to see medium range percentile numbers and wants to avoid really high and really low percentiles in the following tables because if the numbers are really high or really low that would suggest that Ipsos’s data is way off the mark.

Here’s what I found:

2009 Analysis 5a2009 Analysis 5b2009 Analysis 5c2009 Analysis 5d2009 Analysis 5e

Ouch.

So what does this mean?  Well, the data in the tables above show 2 outliers at the 95% confidence interval, 5 outliers at the 90% confidence interval (including the 2 at 95%) and 7 total outliers at the 80% confidence interval (including the 5 at 90% and the 2 at 95%).

On the face of it, that seems like a lot of outliers especially considering I only analysed a total of 10 Ipsos Reid data points.  But, again to be fair to Ipsos Reid, maybe we would see roughly the same large number of outliers if we did this to any polling firm’s data in this way.  I mean after all, 7 polls is not a particularly large population.

So, I decided to run the exact same calculations on Nanos’s numbers, Ekos’s numers and Strategic’s numbers as a control group.  You can look through the tables of each of these calculations here, here and here.

As you can see, it’s not even close.

Nanos, which had 8 total data points, had zero (0) outliers at the 95% confidence interval, zero (0) outliers at the 90% confidence interval, and only one (1) outlier at the 80% confidence interval.

Strategic, which had 12 total data points (more than Ipsos and Nanos), still had zero (0) outliers at the 95% confidence interval, zero (0) outliers at the 90% confidence interval, and only one (1) outlier at the 80% confidence interval.

And lastly, Ekos, which had 6 total data points, had no outliers at either the 95%, 90% or 80% confidence intervals.

So, to put this another way, only 7.7% of Nanos, Ekos and Strategic’s 2009 Conservative and NDP data points are outliers at the 80% confidence interval.

Conversely, a whopping 70% of Ipsos Reid’s 2009 Conservative and NDP data points are outliers at the 80% confidence interval

Also, none (0%) of Nanos, Ekos and Strategic’s 2009 Conservative and NDP data were outliers at the 90% confidence interval whereas 50% (½) of Ipsos Reid’s data were outliers at the same interval.

If you are like me, and like to view findings like this in ‘pretty graph form’, here you go:

2009 Analysis 9a
2009 Analysis 9b
Oh, and just for fun, I also ran the same basic calculations for each Ipsos Reid poll compared to the entire set of 2009 polls and came up with almost the exact same results.  You can see the tables for these calculations by clicking here.

The evidence supporting my initial contention is mounting and the responses we’ve gotten from Mr. Wright have been a mixture of snide, sardonic comments, fallacies and silence.

I believe we all deserve better than that.

36 Responses to “A Response to Ipsos Reid, Part III”


  1. 1 marcel 17 June, 2009 at 9:13 pm

    So, are your lawyers confident that these statments of yours are not ‘actionable’? After all, Ipsos Reid has money and paid lawyers. Which brings us back to the law of the jungle. Might makes right. I doubt if you and paulitics have as much money as Ipsos Reid. So that means Ipsos Reid is going to be declared right. Which brings us back to the need for socialism and webblogs like paulitics.

    So glad you can be here.

    Will Mr. Wright respond with more dialog, or will it be the threat of ‘action’. Seems like he’s out of his league, eh?

    “Shut up! Stop saying those terrible things or I’ll sic my posse on you.’

    ‘We’ll take actionable’

    Loser.

  2. 2 Sid 18 June, 2009 at 10:46 am

    I suspect Mr. Wright is being chastised by those around him to STFU on blogs as he was not doing the company any good.

    Amusingly, if I had to guess why Ipsos is consistently off like this, it would be because of the internal weighting they do to account for age, location etc with the response data – they simply assume some different numbers than the other firms that just so happen to favour conservatives and hurt the NDP.

    As for Z-scores, it is a failing that they are not taught more in school and used more often for their effectiveness at ranking.

  3. 4 marcel 19 June, 2009 at 11:04 pm

    Revised response from Mr. Wright is now summarized as ‘yawn’, nothing, deafening silence.

    I for one am glad Mr. Wright clarified himself for us.

  4. 5 RPJ 20 June, 2009 at 1:23 am

    Mr. Wright may find the discussion of his industry boring but I myself am really enjoying it. I confess that I don’t know much about how their figures are put together so I am learning a great deal. Thanks for the lessons.

  5. 6 John Wright 20 June, 2009 at 1:35 pm

    I don’t need to clarify anything. My initial response was correct and I stand by it. In fact, the assertion of how I somehow didn’t calculate the right average is absurd. 20 years in the business and we do $200 Million a year in Canada alone…all I can say is that he seems to have a great deal of time on his hands to burn through a lot of graphs and charts and, well, whatever…and by the way, EKOS and us have pretty much the exact numbers out in the last 48 hours with the Liberals in front by a point.

  6. 7 RPJ 20 June, 2009 at 3:25 pm

    Hmmm. $200m per yr + 20yrs makes all your numbers credible and accurate? By that logic, Bernie Madoff should be our investment counsellor. I’d rather use the statistical comparisons provided above to form my opinion on that rather than just the bottom line from your financial statments. Thanks anyway.

  7. 8 john.wright@ipsos.com 20 June, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    What I wrote previously still stands…despite all the charts and graphs and arrows and calculations, what I put up is entirely accurate.

    You really should get your own polling company and test out your ideas.

    Regards.

  8. 9 marcel 21 June, 2009 at 1:42 am

    Mr. wright, I apologize for insulting you in previous posts. I guess I was just furious at you because you threatened to sue a blogger of the integrity and intelligence that Paul is. This weblog is what freedom of info is all about. Freedom of speech too.

    My anger kinda clouded my good sense. I’m sure you inderstand.

    Anyways, what about z-scores, and why do your averages not need to be weighted? I you don’t respond with equations and reasons, we’re all going to be communists.

  9. 10 marcel 21 June, 2009 at 1:44 am

    Mr. wright, I apologize for insulting you in previous posts. I guess I was just furious at you because you threatened to sue a blogger of the integrity and intelligence that Paul is. This weblog is what freedom of info is all about. Freedom of speech too.

    My anger kinda clouded my good sense. I’m sure you understand.

    Anyways, what about z-scores, and why do your averages not need to be weighted? If you don’t respond with equations and reasons, we’re all going to be communists.

  10. 11 Eric 22 June, 2009 at 10:10 am

    Interesting read, Paul. I think you, together with Mr. Wright, unravelled Ipsos Reid’s (and possibly many other polling companies) morally corrupt polling practises:

    Paul: “This method could possibly be a flawed method if, for instance, [Ipsos Reid] released a whole slew of polls [..] when the [Conservative Party] was enjoying high levels of support […]

    John: What I wrote previously still stands…despite all the charts and graphs and arrows and calculations, what I put up is entirely accurate.

    And that’s exactly it, you guys are both right!

    Ipsos Reid is simply providing their cronies (who by the way pay for the polling, one way or another) a service when they come out with positive polling numbers. Who cares what the probability of such “accurate polling” is?

    TIMING and VOLUME of polls are polling companies’ biggest asset; that’s where they can make the difference for their biggest clients. Those client, in the end, are getting what they paid for, and who then still cares if the numbers do NOT resemble reality?

  11. 12 John Wright 22 June, 2009 at 10:19 am

    Oh I get it now.

    I’m so very, very sorry.

    I thought all this time I was on a blog called Paulitics when in fact it’s a portal for Comedy Central.

    I am rolling on the floor laughing…this has been great…thanks so much…

    • 13 Eric 22 June, 2009 at 11:19 am

      John, everybody knows that polls are being used to prop up positions, businesses, or parties; really no news there.

      Polling businesses have morphed into a marketing tool where finding the right (or accurate as John likes to call it) numbers is no longer merely used for research purposes; the polls themselves have become an integral part of a clients marketing campaign.

      What I think is interesting, is that a senior vice president of Canadas largest polling company appears to have lots of time these days to read blogs and watch Comedy Central

      Advertising revenue is down: what wonders a recession can bring.

    • 14 A Canadian 23 June, 2009 at 9:35 am

      I find it interesting how easily you dismiss your critics, Mr Wright. This evaluation provided by Paul, as well as your lackluster responses to serious and simple questions, has made me very much aware of your company’s bad practices, and from this point on I shall be much more skeptical of the results provided by your company.

      Your lack of a serious response to such questions is severely damaging to your brand, Mr Wright. Not like you care though, it’s pretty obvious you don’t see this nor other bloggers as having an impact on your business. I believe this will be one of the leading causes in your company’s eventual demise.

  12. 15 john.wright@ipsos.com 23 June, 2009 at 10:17 am

    Actually, you underestimate me.

    First, I have great respect for smart and constructive discourse. I have thrived on it for 30 years and love what I do. I am more than happy to engage in thoughtful and enriching debate.

    But what I find here is disturbing, and that’s why I have seeming contempt.

    The blog world is a complete double standard. People make wild accusations, completely bogus statements and conjure nonsense pretending to be truth.

    When someone, not of the tribe, comes in to correct the record, especially here, they are met with invective and insults.

    And, since there is no way to correct falsehood in this wild wild west venue, it becomes nothing more than a chat site for lots of people who like the platform but can’t live up to honesty.

    In this particular example, I responded with a straight forward response: if you take all, not just some, of the polls for all of the companies from 2008 up to present and average them each, you essentially get the same numbers with us in the middle of the pack. And if you take all of the companies and all of the polls and count up the times the parties are put out front or behind, the claim that we are somehow manipulating or being manipulated by some Tory motive or directive is utterly false.

    You can have all the graphs and charts and theory’s and whatever you want, but in this case, the findings are all available and the math is simple.

    Next, to slander or coddle false information, in the non blog world, is subject to scrutiny…that’s what the legal arena is for, to simply make the truth transparent. It’s not a threat or an ordeal, it is to set the record straight because opinion can be very wrong indeed. The accusation of “push polling” and other methods contained therein are, at best ill informed, or a lie, and a person who works in a phone room who pretends to be a researcher is a fraud. So be it.

    Lastly, unlike others here, I don’t hide behind a handle and can be very open to thoughtful discourse. But it can also be said that a world with no transparency and a landscape with no order or rules, littered by double standards, can’t be taken seriously.

    If you demanded as much of yourselves as you do from others, you would have respect, not contempt and it would be a thoughtful exchange. If on the other hand this is just narcism, as it seems to be, then it’s relevance is discounted to a joke chat line.

    And that is your brand, not mine.

  13. 16 RPJ 23 June, 2009 at 11:27 am

    This begs the question. What are you doing here Mr. Wright? You are not adding any concrete facts or intelligent analysis of the data presented. You are definitely not doing your company any favours with your postings. You seem to miss the entire point of many blogs, and this blog in particular, to offer a forum for the intelligent and thoughtful pursuit of political matters and concepts. So what the hell are you getting out of this exercise? I am sincerely mystified by your behaviour. You have no respect for Paul, his data, or his readers or contributors and yet you are currently his most prolific poster. Albeit only to shrilly cry “liar, liar, pants on fire” Or “I am right, I know I’m right, and I have the data to prove it but you will have to take my word on that”. Basically all you add is heat and no light to these discussions. It should be easy for you to post something of value to the discussion by simply disclosing these “facts” that you try to tantalize with. When they never appear, we are most justified in suspecting that they clearly don’t seem to exist. Do yourself and your company a favour and either post something of substance like concrete data or remove yourself from the arena. As interesting as it has been to watch a corporate exec make a mockery of his company’s reputation, it is getting old quickly.

  14. 17 john.wright@ipsos.com 23 June, 2009 at 11:38 am

    I gave a concrete and clear answer at the outset and got shat on. That was concrete. What else was there to do when more and more falsehoods are dished out by the people who inhabit this space?

    Honestly, it’s not my reputation or the reputation of any other entity that matters here except yours and this space. Why should any of us take this seriously when there are no rules, no transparency, no back up for the claims or substantiation.

    If it is just one big joke that won’t take a clear answer and instead try to provoke invective, then it will be treated as such.

    If no rules apply in this forum where substance and truth matters then I will hang out and continue to make my point: what was published at the outset was and is wrong, my calculations are right, the answer is clear, the claims are lies and full of falsehoods, and the conduct here is a joke.

    That’s it. And that is why I am responding.

  15. 18 RPJ 23 June, 2009 at 11:54 am

    Numbers (data) either stand or fall on their own merit or not. I’ll take one more ride on this merry-go-round and then I’m done. Either show where Paul’s data is wrong or stop claiming that it is with nothing to back up the claim. Your vague and general assertions prove nothing and mean nothing, but of course you must already know that. I would be really interested in seeing your data and learning something of value from you but I am seriously losing all hope that that might ever happen.

  16. 19 Eric 23 June, 2009 at 12:10 pm

    “what was published at the outset was and is wrong [..] the claims are lies and full of falsehoods, and the conduct here is a joke.”

    Oh, I get it now, John is allowed to call everyone else a liar (talk about his conduct being a joke) but we’re not allowed to call his polls baloney?

    As I outlined before, polling companies have all the freedom to time polls, a perfectly legal way (opposed to push-pulling) of cherry-picking on “correct” polling numbers.

    Paul’s graphs clearly show that Ipsos published a) peeks of Conservative support and b) lows of NDP support. Did they do this on purpose? Hard to prove, but I wouldn’t be surprised, on the contrary; when it’s good for business (and I’m sure their clients are willing to pay for the more positive results) positive) and when it’s perfectly legal, then why not?

    Thank you, Paul, for all the good work you have done. You’ve clearly won the argument from John, IMHO.

  17. 20 John Wright 23 June, 2009 at 3:24 pm

    Ok, here goes, again.

    There is no rocket science here.

    Just because someone has a bunch of graphs, charts and theories don’t make it true.

    If there are assertions (as there were at the outset of this long and involved strand) these can sometimes be rendered unsupportable by simple evidence. That is what has happened here. This is not some kind of trite response as a dismissal: this is fact. There is nothing more than this to be said than what it is. When I explained it is was not accepted. We are not dealing here with some problem with weighting or any conspiracy of anything. It is as simple as what I have written. Anyone with a calculator can do this. You don’t have to have taken a stats course.

    You don’t have to know anything else except simple math and for some reason it is dismissed as over simplification or that I don’t know what I am doing. Here is the website with all of the opinion polls listed:
    http://www.nodice.ca/elections/canada/polls.php

    I took all of the 2008 and 2009 polls and averaged the findings for each firm and then generally—perfectly legit and pretty much what the original author did with his handful of polls in his charts. I then identified the number of times the Conservatives were out in front in the polls in order to determine if indeed we were some kind of outlier, as accused.

    This is a straight percentage of the total…and again, we are in the upper middle of the pack. That’s it. And it’s correct because it is, not because I say it is. So there you go.

    Here is exactly what I said from the outset: “In between elections, Elections Canada posts the results of all of the public opinion polls released into the public domain. They are all there–hundreds of them. So, if you take all of the polls by all of the major firms and do some simple calculations, a couple things emerge based on fact:

    First, the Conservative average vote percentage January 2008-June 2009 per polling company: EKOS 37.5 Angus Reid 36.8 Ipsos Reid 36.2 Nanos 35.6 Strategic Counsel 35.2 Harris-Decima 34.8 The mean (arithmetic): 36.02 This shows that regardless of the firm, every one of them produced the same results, on average, for the Conservative support. This should put to rest any argument that one firm or another is favouring the Conservatives by somehow jacking their support levels up. To state as such is simply and utterly untrue.

    To suggest that the methodology used by any of these firms in calculating such results is flawed infers that all of their methodologies are flawed or all of them are not flawed. We prefer the latter view. It also demonstrates that Ipsos Reid’s difference from the average is one fifth of one percentage point: 0.18

    The second is the assertion that a firm (in this case, Ipsos Reid) is deliberately showing the Conservatives in the lead more often than others because of some bias or undue influence of the poll sponsor. Here are the percentages of times the Conservatives are presented as leading the Liberals in polls released by polling firms during the time-frame examined:

    EKOS 100% SEGMA 100% Ipsos Reid 96% Strategic Counsel 91% Nanos 90% Harris-Decima 84% The mean (arithmetic) is: 93.5% The Ipsos Reid difference from the average: 2.5 This result based on fact shows that the second assertion is false and misleading as it applies to Ipsos Reid. And if other firms (like Compas (at 100%) and others like Leger) were also added to the mix then the margin that Ipsos is from the Mean would be even less. The reason these firms were not included in the calculations was that they actually had so few polls released on Federal politics during the time-frame examined. Their results would have unduly skewed the results –actually to the benefit of Ipsos Reid.”

    Now let’s deal with the NDP over the same time frame for the key polling agencies: Here average vote percentage for the NDP between January 2008-June 2009 per polling company:

    EKOS 19 Angus Reid 18 Ipsos Reid 15 Nanos 18 Strategic Counsel 14 Harris-Decima 17 The mean (arithmetic): 16.8 which puts IR 1.8 from the mean, and again, with the margin of error calculated, everybody is showing about the same.

    In the last of our 4 polls the NDP have been in the lower range (running 14-15 points) with EKOS and Harris Decima roughly the same and the others at the higher end. This is when Paulitics made the calculations. But just previous to that are 4 of our polls with the NDP running between 18-19 points.

    So, there are some fluctuations but the average remains pretty much the same. As I said, the assertions made by Paulitics at the outset of this string, are, in fact, wrong and no amount of graphs, charts, theories or invective hurled my way will change that.

    Best regards.

    John Wright

  18. 21 Big Guy in TB 24 June, 2009 at 8:42 am

    I believe that both Mr Wright and this blog are both mathematically correct. However, the flaw in Mr Wright’s responses are that he does not specifically address the assertions made by Paulitics. Mr Wright uses global statistics from the last 18 months, and this blog specifically addresses issues, using numbers from Ipsos, for 6 polls from this year. Its as of Mr Wright is trying to compare apples and oranges to prove Paulitics wrong. As long as he takes this approach, Mr Wright has no hope of convincing this reader, and I suspect many others, of just who is right or wrong, and the childish, boorish, and immature insults from both sides of this issue will continue.

    Mr Wright, carefully read the blog again, respond specifically to the issues raised, and perhaps you will have a change to regain your credibility and that of your organization.

    • 22 John Wright 24 June, 2009 at 8:46 am

      This is the answer…really…this addresses the assertions…really…

      “In the last of our 4 polls the NDP have been in the lower range (running 14-15 points) with EKOS and Harris Decima roughly the same and the others at the higher end. This is when Paulitics made the calculations. But just previous to that are 4 of our polls with the NDP running between 18-19 points.

      So, there are some fluctuations but the average remains pretty much the same.”

  19. 23 Big Guy in TB 24 June, 2009 at 9:03 am

    Well, Mr Wright you have failed miserably to convince me. You sound just like former Prime Minister Chretien who once famously said “A proof, is a proof, is a proof”.

    Enough said.

  20. 25 John Wright 27 June, 2009 at 1:05 am

    So, what’s your e-mail? What’s your phone number? What’s your address??

    What, you aren’t a coward are you???? Show us where you are…you have to have more than that “Paul Bernardo” lookalike picture, don’t you???

    C’mon, fess up…

  21. 26 Eric 27 June, 2009 at 11:03 am

    It’s staggering to see how little John Wright understands about blogging community: blogging is about sharing information, stupid!

    Bloggers, and especially those with a strong opinions, are NEVER going to give “phone number” or “address” to people like you, John.

    Just to let you know, it’s not because we think our opinions are not worthy of legal scrutiny, no, it’s because bloggers know that Commonwealth’s libel and slander laws have been designed to favour the rich (people like you, John) over people with more moderate incomes, and SLAPP suits have shut up many bloggers who did share their personal information. Get it now?

    Go play with your own friends, John, perhaps they will give you the respect you think you deserve. And if THEY are not giving you what you want, then, by all means, go ahead and sue them.

  22. 27 janfromthebruce 27 June, 2009 at 9:13 pm

    generally I see polling companies as doing “push polling” even when the questions would not be considered “pushing.” Just the timing becomes a push. But the question with “unholy alliance” in it showed its bias and negative slant – thus push.
    Paying the piper is fruitful but so bad for Canadian democracy.

  23. 28 Eric 28 June, 2009 at 1:06 am

    generally I see polling companies as doing “push polling” even when the questions would not be considered “pushing.” Just the timing becomes a push.

    That’s well said, Jan, timing and volume are great assets for an increased “pushing” (or influencing) of public perception on a polled issue: that’s why polls get a) ordered so frequently and b) published so infrequently.

    John knows this too, of course, but he’s simply not willing to admit it. When John says that he doesn’t do push polling or political polling, we’re need to take such a statement with the corporate grain of salt (those grains tend to be bigger than average): published polls by their very nature “push” perception.

  24. 29 Rachel 9 April, 2013 at 10:51 pm

    Does your website have a contact page? I’m having a tough time locating it but, I’d like to shoot you an email.
    I’ve got some creative ideas for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great blog and I look forward to seeing it grow over time.

  25. 30 meet guys 13 August, 2013 at 10:13 pm

    For latest news you have to visit the web and on world-wide-web I found this web site
    as a most excellent web page for most up-to-date updates.

  26. 31 testing 5 July, 2014 at 12:35 pm

    You could certainly see your expertise in the work you write.
    The sector hopes for even more passionate writers like you who are not afraid to mention how they believe.

    At all times follow your heart.

  27. 32 IT Support Services 11 September, 2014 at 6:47 am

    Oh my goodness! Amazing article dude! Thanks, However I am having issues with your RSS. I don’t know the reason why I am unable to subscribe to it. Is there anyone else having similar RSS issues? Anyone that knows the solution can you kindly respond? Thanks!!


  1. 1 A response to Ipsos Reid, Part II « Paulitics Trackback on 17 June, 2009 at 7:41 pm
  2. 2 A response to Ipsos Reid, Part I « Paulitics Trackback on 17 June, 2009 at 7:44 pm
  3. 3 Ipsos Reid: 0; bloggers everywhere: 1 « Paulitics Trackback on 21 June, 2009 at 8:11 pm
  4. 4 Bloggers everywhere: 2; Ipsos Reid: 0 « Paulitics Trackback on 26 June, 2009 at 8:41 pm

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s




Resources:

home page polling resource

Click below to download the

Paulitics Blog Search

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in the comments section beneath each post on this blog do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the blog's author and creator. Individual commentators on this blog accept full responsibility for any and all utterances.

Reddit

Progressive Bloggers

Blogging Canadians

Blogging Change

LeftNews.org

Paulitics Blog Stats

  • 831,209 hits since 20 November, 2006

%d bloggers like this: