too small of a sample
51% Of Canadians Support The Mission In Afghanistan
Unlike some would have you believe:
“OTTAWA - Canadian support for the military mission in Afghanistan remains surprisingly stable, including in Quebec, despite the loss of three soldiers from that province in the past week, a new CanWest News Service/Global National poll suggests.
The poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid found 51 per cent of respondents across the country said they support the mission, while 45 per cent oppose it. The numbers remained virtually unchanged from a month ago.”
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=d125b279-9c7d-4bbe-8aba-8d3b4501ff35
“OTTAWA - Canadian support for the military mission in Afghanistan remains surprisingly stable, including in Quebec, despite the loss of three soldiers from that province in the past week, a new CanWest News Service/Global National poll suggests.
The poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid found 51 per cent of respondents across the country said they support the mission, while 45 per cent oppose it. The numbers remained virtually unchanged from a month ago.”
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=d125b279-9c7d-4bbe-8aba-8d3b4501ff35
1 - 20 of 77 Posts
wow, well that;s a mandate for war, eh?
Yet if the same percentage - 54% - of 1,000 opposed the war, that would be your mandate to pull out of Afgan, wouldn't it?wow, well that;s a mandate for war, eh?
I'm sure there'll be a statistician along any moment with further details, but the reason you often see samples of around 1,000 for opinion polls is that they'd have to interview more than twice as many people to reduce the margin of error from +/- 3% to +/- 2% @ 95% confidence.too small of a sample
I agree the sample is too small to say much about any one province (sample size = about 250 for Quebec, thus margin of error is much higher), but it's a very common sample size for a national poll.
The question to ask is: who did the poll, and exactly what did they ask?
Since this one was done by a presumably more-or-less neutral third party, I'd be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt (in terms of statistical validity of the national results) but am still curious to see exactly what the questions were.
CanWest News Service/Global National=The question to ask is: who did the poll, and exactly what did they ask?
conducted by Ipsos-Reid
It was more or less rhetorical. I know who conducted the poll (see my last paragraph), but I don't know just what they asked.CanWest News Service/Global National
conducted by Ipsos-Reid
Not that SINC would deliberately remove some parts of the story...Unlike some would have you believe:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/...fa1a8-866d-4c2c-8042-f8013c8f4f80&k=62450&p=2he deaths of soldiers from the Quebec-based Van Doos regiment could alter the whole equation. In the one province already firmly opposed to sending troops to Afghanistan, a CROP survey partly conducted after the death of Private Simon Longtin on Sunday recorded an 11 percentage point increase, to 68%, of Quebecers opposed to their compatriots being involved in the conflict. That was before the two most recent deaths.
But until the past few days, at least, opinion levels were surprisingly predictable.
A series of polls conducted by Ipsos Reid for CanWest News Service and Global Television since January, 2006, all asking the same question, has seen support for the mission roller-coaster from 44% to 52%, then back down below 50%, then up again to a peak of 57% last fall. There has been a slow slide to 50% support since then, but the results over 18 months plot a relatively flat line that has hovered around 50% backing.
The company found that news of a soldier being killed did not seem to alter the polling numbers significantly, Mr. Wright said.
Strategic Counsel has recorded similar fluctuations and a similar range of variation in its polls since early 2006, after a fast drop from 55% support in March of that year.
The difference is that its surveys have backing for the mission hovering around the 40% mark, 10 points below those of Ipsos Reid.
A spokesman for the company refused to comment on its results, citing its contract with another media outlet. Rob Huebert of the University of Calgary's Centre for Military and Strategic Studies suggested the difference in the two pollsters' results can be traced to the questions they pose.
Ipsos Reid asks respondents about their support for "the use of Canada's troops for security and combat efforts against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan."
Strategic Counsel asks simply about "the decision to send Canadian troops to Afghanistan."
"They set up the issue differently," Prof. Huebert said. "It is not a coincidence that the one that clearly defines the threat gets the higher response ... People won't think immediately of why we are there. If you mention Taliban and al-Qaeda, people will clue in."
In a string of polls for the National Defence Department in late 2006 and early 2007, Ipsos Reid tweaked the questions even further, and found dramatic differences in response.
When the question referred to military operations that help to secure "the environment for the civilian population" through activities "that include combat," backing shot up to the low 60s.
After a lengthy preamble that said Canada is trying to improve human rights for women and build a more free and democratic society in Afghanistan, another question drew support from 81%.
It suggests that explaining the purpose of the mission is all-important if the government wants to boost the tepid support among Canadians for the operation, said Alex Morrison of the Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies.
"The polling has indicated to the government that it is not doing a good job of communicating why we are in Afghanistan. The government recognizes that but consistently refuses to do anything about it," he said.
"Unless the government starts telling Canadians often, frequently, why we are there, I don't think the numbers will change very much."
In other words, it's all in the marketing but it will not change the fact that this is a fool's errant and a waste of life.
Obviously you have no clue how statistical data works.too small of a sample
But, besides that, I'd be surprised if 10% of Canadians even understood what the Afghanistan mission really is.
Care to take back this statement?most [mohst] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective, superl. of much or many with more as compar.
1. in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number: to win the most votes.
2. in the majority of instances: Most operations are successful.
3. greatest, as in size or extent: the most talent.
–noun
4. the greatest quantity, amount, or degree; the utmost: The most I can hope for is a passing grade.
5. the greatest number or the majority of a class specified: Most of his writing is rubbish.
6. the greatest number: The most this room will seat is 150.
7. the majority of persons: to be more sensitive than most.
I'd be surprised if 10% of the people posting here had any similar idea. Recall how many thought Canada was on a peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan; or how many have no idea about Canada's major efforts in restructuring there.Obviously you have no clue how statistical data works.
But, besides that, I'd be surprised if 10% of Canadians even understood what the Afghanistan mission really is.
putting on your Kreskin tin foil hat again?Yet if the same percentage - 54% - of 1,000 opposed the war, that would be your mandate to pull out of Afgan, wouldn't it?
and now watch at BJ sucks money from the teat of big oil and lecture people about their opinions
the famous talking out of you a$$ trick perfected by Nixon
from the article;Unlike some would have you believe:
“OTTAWA - Canadian support for the military mission in Afghanistan remains surprisingly stable, including in Quebec, despite the loss of three soldiers from that province in the past week, a new CanWest News Service/Global National poll suggests.
The poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid found 51 per cent of respondents across the country said they support the mission, while 45 per cent oppose it. The numbers remained virtually unchanged from a month ago.”
Canadian support for the mission holding steady: poll
most warlike Canadians ?The poll reveals that the strongest support for the mission is in Alberta (72 per cent)
Nope, Albertans just understand the mission and made an informed decision of support.most warlike Canadians ?
these are the same Albertans that have voted in a PC gov't for decades, rejecting other parties?Nope, Albertans just understand the mission and made an informed decision of support.
and have one of the higher provincial substance abuse rates?
those Albertans?The study finds that the prevalence of substance abuse in Canada is about 11 per cent. Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island have the lowest rates of abuse of alcohol and illicit drugs, with a prevalence rate lower than the national average, while B.C, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta have prevalence rates that are above average.
I will never understand how Albertans can dump all over non Albertans for voting in "the natural ruling party" (aka federal Liberals) yet don't see the hypocrisy of voting in PC (aka con lite) for decades
Amazing you don't understand the term hypocrisy. Nothing remotely to do with voting Conservative.
Too bad about your natural ruling Liberals who elected such a wimp of a leader they fear an election any time soon.
Too bad about your natural ruling Liberals who elected such a wimp of a leader they fear an election any time soon.
These the same Albertans that blame all on the Liberals, are against SSM, these same Albertans that seem to think that crime is rampant in TO because of gangs and think that addiction is mostly a big city problem?Nope, Albertans just understand the mission and made an informed decision of support.
If we are going to do personal attacks.... I know of one older Albertan that fits that description.Amazing you don't understand the term hypocrisy.
Amazing you don't understand the term "personal attack".
For the record, that post was disputing the definition of the term.
As for personal attacks, you would know, being the master of delivering or threatening to deliver the same one time and time again.
For the record, that post was disputing the definition of the term.
As for personal attacks, you would know, being the master of delivering or threatening to deliver the same one time and time again.
SINC, I've been rather generous lately and try to avoid you. I've never hid or played games like you do. Instead of skirting what I think, I have no qualms at calling you an idiot when you get more obtuse than normal.
Now will you go cry to the mods?
Now will you go cry to the mods?
1 - 20 of 77 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac
A forum community dedicated to Canadian Mac owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, iOS, models, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
