I'm just learning new things every day. So yesterday I posted poll results showing a surge in GPC support in BC. I didn't say that we were on the way to a major breakthrough or that we would be seeing a majority government in the near future but I published a poll that has some very positive results and said that the results of the poll were very positive.
I said it was great news for our BC candidates. I think even if the poll turns out to be inaccurate that it is still a good sign that the possibility of that level of support exists. While many deny it, polls do have an impact on public support. If there seems to be momentum in the polls towards the GPC than people will begin taking us more seriously which can result in support solidifying or support increasing further.
With that said I clearly underestimated the attitude of some Greens there seems to be a group of Greens who say that they want to help the party but it is becoming increasingly clear that they would rather see the party fail than have it succeed while Elizabeth is the leader.
These are the people who view every positive poll with skepticism but view negative polls as clear indication that Elizabeth/Sharon/Adriane/FC/CC doesn't know what they are doing or are doing irreparable harm to the party.
When a poll comes out I look through it for something to blog about when I find something I start writing. It's unfair to say that I cherry pick or ignore some polls. This is the difference between me and them. I want to write a fair blog that shows the good and the bad and hopefully the growth of the GPO/GPC, they are out to prove a point. Normally their point seems to be that no one but them and those who agree with them know what they are doing.
Since SIR brought up in his comment yesterday that this is a problem with Young Greens I have to point out that while I may be young, it's the older bloggers who have been acting childishly.
Dave, you have to grow a
Dave, you have to grow a thicker skin.
Let's look at how this evolved. You blogged about the poll drawing the "circular" link between E May contemplating running there, and the higher level of public support for the Greens in BC. Then Camille blogged about the exact same poll, further drawing the inference, and then shortly thereafter Cathatrine J wrote on the GPC site: "Great post by Camille Labchuk:"
http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/197/2009-08-25/bc-poll-results
Now, according to Elizabeth May recently in the Saanich news:
May's candidacy for the local riding remains unofficial. She has told the News that she would like to run in Saanich-Gulf Islands, but is awaiting approval from the party's national council and campaign committee.
http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_south/saanichnews/news/May_to_face_Green_challenger_for_Saanich-Gulf_Islands.html
So, it is rather apparent to me why you, Camille and Catharine may wish to play up the inconclusive polls in BC: to somehow rally support for her decision to run in SGI, which you have almost blindly supported.
But, this type of cherrypicking is counterproductive - though it may serve some sort of internal political short term needs. Which, frankly, is one of the main problems with this type of cheerleading.
Btw, you asked me in the comments section about predicting majority gov'ts. I replied and explained how you were interpreting my comments incorrectly. Yet, in between the few minutes I had to reply, you posted this blog here. That, to me, is a far more accurate description of being childish, and thin skinned.
Political Science versus Politics
As someone who studied history as my major and going to do international relations as my masters I entrenched myself in methodology, this is one thing I learned very quickly: you cannot take a cross section of a trend or event and make any conclusions. It is immediately denounced, almost surely innacurate, and not becauses all the conclusions are wrong, but because the methodology is wrong.
Just an example. It is impossible for anyone to relate how the French Revolution was by exploring one day, one week or perhaps even one year. You can't discuss the creation of the UN without considering WWII, WWI, the League of Nations, international trends, balance of power struggles, etc. Indeed, context is critical. Not recognizing that gives a false impression both of the root causes and long and medium term consequences.
I don't think political polls are any different. They are not important individually (remember that Quebec poll that put the Greens at 20+%?) but are very valuable when together to create comprehensive trends considering as much data as possible. It's basic in political science to do so.
So this is what it comes down to: if you are approaching this to seek any conclusions that could be verified, tested or largely trusted, you would be taking a political science approach and would need to follow a strict, and measurable, methodoloy. But you're not - and that's fine. It is well within your rights as someone interested in championing the GPC, and you have people who are earnestly interesting in your opinion and perspectives. What you're doing is politics which doesn't need any justification or methodology - you just get to pick and choose - and because others will pick and choose, they will disagree with you. You cannot reconcile your disagreements because you have no methodology upon which to compare your conclusions.
As for the poll itself, I think it's good news for the GPC and for May's run in Saanich as well, but given the above, I take it with a grain of salt and I will continue to watch to see whether there is a trend or if this is an inaccurate cross-section.
Mark K
Re:
My blog post was not a reply to your comments other than the last little bit since you think it has something to do with age.
I have not blindly supported anything. You have no evidence of this?
This isn't about thin vs thick skin it's about people trying to play down any positive GPC news and attacking and questioning the credibility of anyone who highlights the positive news. Then they pretend that they are being objective and realistic when in reality they would rather see the GPC fail than have it suceed while Elizabeth is the leader.
~ Dave Bagler
Dave, if I didn't want to see
Dave, if I didn't want to see Elizabeth succeed, do you think I would have taken the time to suggest this story to the columnist?
Ms. May deserves an invite to the leaders' gabfest
Saturday, Jan. 20, 2007 11:28AM EST – by ERIC REGULY – Report On Business
Btw, given the heightened media exposure May was already receiving, I didn't expect the big bounce that others were predicting if she got in.
There, maybe you've learned something else today.
-SIR
One more thing..
I should just add that isolating poll results is done by people on all sides of the debate, in all political parties, in all countries. It is, as I said, part of politics whether we like it or not.
It seems to me that the best solution is that if you don't believe it to be the correct method in which to interpret results/data, then don't do it yourself. Engaging in a methodology argument where there is no methodology, in my experience, has never been productive or effective.
Mark K.
Post new comment