Now ah doh really believe in political surveys. but ah found this one interesting. I highlighted some of what these people want us to believe. Yeah it colourful....so wha.
Btw other dan Janet husband, who is Selwyn Ryan again please?? All i remembered is him being a lecturer at Uwee, after dat ah blank.
PNM 34%; COP 30%; UNC Alliance 5%
Trinidad Express
by Selwyn Ryan
Wednesday, October 17th 2007
PART I
Results of a political opinion survey conducted by Selwyn Ryan and Associates over the period September 29 to October 6, 2007 indicate that the People's National Movement (PNM) and Congress of the People (COP) are locked in an electoral battle that is extremely close, with the PNM being only marginally ahead of the new challenger.
When voters were asked which party they preferred to have govern the country over the next five years, the PNM was preferred by 34 per cent, the COP by 30 per cent, the UNC Alliance by five per cent, an alliance or merger of COP and the UNC by 26 per cent, and None of the Above by four per cent. The percentages for both COP and the UNC would of course increase now that merger talks have collapsed.
When asked the more direct (but less productive) question, which party are you likely to vote for, 32 per cent said they would vote for the PNM, 28 per cent said COP, five per cent said the UNC Alliance, while three per cent said they would vote for a merger of COP and the UNC Alliance. Twelve per cent said they were uncertain as to what they would do eventually, 19 per cent refused to say, and two per cent said they would support "none of the above". Again, we assume that the percentages for both COP and the UNC would increase somewhat now that unity talks have collapsed. Given the margin of error (±3 per cent) associated with a sample this size (1244), one would have to declare that we seem to have a statistical dead heat.
The COP draws 48 per cent of its support from Indo-Trinidadians, 24 per cent from mixed elements, and 12 per cent from Afro-Trinidadians. The PNM, for its part, draws 52 per cent of its support from Afro-Trinidadians, 35 per cent from the mixed group, and ten per cent from Indo-Trinidadians.
Indo-Trinidadians are more definite about their voting intentions than are Afro Trinidadians. Seventy-five percent of them say they are definitely voting compared to 63 per cent of the Afros and 68 per cent of the Mixed group. Twelve per cent of the Afros say that are definitely not voting at all compared to only six per cent of the Indo-Trinidadians. These figures are statistically significant and could give the COP an edge.
Many young Afro-Trinidadians claim that CEPEP, URP and GATE notwithstanding, the PNM has done nothing for them. Free education from since ya born till ya reach adult not good enough? If ya didn't do well academically, and it have trade schools and Sevol ? So much damn buildings go up in the air, ah sure your skills would make ah big impact in your life. ent?? Ah wish ah had free education yes....
The data reveal that there was a great deal of volatility, confusion and indecision among voters, particularly those who were cross-pressured between the UNC and COP. When asked what they would do if the UNC Alliance and the COP were to come together, only ten per cent said they would vote for the unity product, while 18 per cent said they would not. Many others say they would vote for the PNM (28 per cent); five per cent said they would not vote at all. Eighteen per cent did not know what they would do, while 21 per cent refused to say.
When ethnicity was factored into the analysis, we find a quarter of the Indo-Trinidadians (24 per cent) saying they would vote for the unity arrangement while one-fifth (19 per cent) would not vote. Ten (10) percent said they would vote PNM while another five per cent would abstain altogether. The others did not know what they would do or refused to say.
Interestingly, 38 per cent felt that a coalition or merger would defeat the PNM, but a third, 33 per cent felt that it would not. Twenty-five per cent were uncertain, and four per cent refused to say. This is why Jack Warner want this merger bad
Pollsters, pundits and party stalwarts have been speculating as to what these trends portend in terms of outcomes in November 5. Some see a COP victory while others see a PNM clean sweep. Given the recent UNC surge, however, it may well be that all three parties will secure some seats, and that no party will obtain enough of them to form a government on its own without the cooperation of some other party. All three scenarios now seem possible. And the fun will then begin.
Pollsters, like weather forecasters and doctors, make genuine diagnostic errors. The public should, however, be beware of pollsters who hide bad news or
who use data in a partisan manner to game the election. We must always remember that polls do not predict elections, pollsters do. As in any profession, there are honest ones and very dishonest ones.
The Manning Factor
There clearly is a "Manning Factor" in this election. Unlike Mr Dookeran, who is a "Mr Nice Guy", Mr Manning is a man who polarises people and opinion. You either like him a lot or you don't. You either endorse his vision of himself and the society, or you don't. You either accept his definition of himself and his government as not merely being "good", but as "righteous" and God-ordained, or you are derisive about it. You either admire his political bravery or brashness, his self-confidence or his arrogance and his stubbornness, or you wonder whether his head is properly screwed on. Some insist he is "foolish" or a Mugabe-like dictator in the makings.
In order to find out how people react to the Manning personality, respondents were asked to indicate how they felt, deep down, about Mr Manning. On the positive side were four options, competent, caring, visionary and God-chosen. On the negative side there were five options, fool, poor as a leader, power hungry, stubborn, and mentally unbalanced. Respondents were given two choices. In their first choice 16 per cent of the sample deemed him "competent", eight per cent "caring", ten per cent saw him as being "visionary", and two per cent considered him "God-chosen". The aggregate of these positive depictions was 36 per cent.
On the other face of the coin, eight per cent saw him as being "power-hungry", 15 per cent as being "stubborn", 11 per cent "foolish", four per cent "mentally unbalanced", and 15 per cent a "poor leader". The cumulative percentage on the negative side was 55 per cent. Twelve per cent avoided giving an answer.
When the two choices were taken together, the pattern was as follows: "competent", 11 per cent, "visionary as leader", 11 per cent, "caring", eight per cent, and "God chosen", three per cent. The positive aggregate was 33 per cent. On the negative side, the pattern was as follows: "power-hungry", 11 per cent, "stubborn", 14 per cent, "poor leader", 12 per cent, "foolish leader", seven per cent, "mentally unbalanced", four per cent. The aggregate was 48 per cent. What all of this means is that more persons had unfavourable perceptions of Mr Manning as leader, notwithstanding his own view that he was "too clean" and "too nice". One also notes that being stubborn could cut both ways. Many who dislike Mr Manning express admiration for the fact that he persists in doing things that cost him public approval if he believes that he is doing the right thing.
Not surprisingly, attitudes to Manning varied by ethnic and party affiliation. Indians were more allergic to him than were favourably disposed. Using first choice only, the aggregate positives totaled 50 per cent, while the aggregate negatives totalled 37 per cent. This may be a factor which affects the choices people will make on election day when brutal choices have to be made, and the "winner takes all".
Tomorrow:
How voters feel about the government's performance on managing the economy, crime, the CJ affair, smelters, food prices and the executive presidency.
