this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
41 points (97.7% liked)
CanadaPolitics
2229 readers
72 users here now
Placeholder for any r/CanadaPolitics refugees
Rules
- Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
An "insignificant lead" huh? Not exactly the sort of words I would use considering that the Liberals went from "zero chance of winning" to "barely the most likely to win". Frankly, just getting to this point is a massive upset to the degree that PP should resign on the spot just so the Cons have any sort of chance of not being the #1 cause for a new majority Liberal government.
While anything is possible and this can change on a dime, frankly speaking Carney is basically the only leader right now that has both integrity and vision. None of his competitors have either and it is well known that they don't. How can anybody vote for someone who has no idea what they want for the future of Canada aside from just being it's leader?
It's exactly the sort of words I would use, given what the words mean. Statistical significance is a technical term, meaning that the results are likely to be representative of the true value in the population, and not some editorial flair meant to undercut the shift in polls.
The margin of error is larger than the polling advantage measured in the survey, which means the reported lead is statistically insignificant, and that they were just as likely to find that the CPC held a narrow lead if they were to have shuffled their call list during the survey period.
My issue is the use of the word within the context of the matter. Whether the Liberals hold any sort of lead, or if it means much in the long term doesn't really matter. What's important in this article is the changes that's shown up over the last week or so with all their numbers.
For the first time this election, the Liberals have taken popularity from the Conservatives, and by a large amount according to these polls. But the article title is basically trying to put emphasis and downplay the fact that they have a lead at all. The amount is tiny, yes, and from a technical standpoint is certainly is insignificant, but looking at the charts, what's important is the meteoric rise they've achieved in the polls.
While I'm not really a fan of the Liberals (they're more like my least currently hated party than anything), this title feels like it's seriously slanted by trying to downplay and ignore what's actually significant. It's like how Kim Jon Un was "elected by the majority" sort of thing, though maybe that comparison isn't charitable either.
"insignificant" is not qualifying their current state, it's just qualifying by how much they're leading right now.
Did I miss any integrity damning scandal for the other Liberal candidates? They all seem to have a decent track record.