The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Your Turn -- What Do You Really Think Of Polls

Episode Date: February 13, 2025

The Random Ranter is here for his weekly rant -- this week his latest on the Donald Trump situation

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's Thursday, that means your turn. What do you really think of polls? And the Random Ranter is here with his latest on Donald Trump and the U.S.-Canada relationship. That's coming right up. Well, you know, just about every day there's a poll on something that comes out in most of the media organizations. It could be a poll on the liberal leadership race. It could be a poll on the national election situation. It could be a poll on the Ontario election race that's underway. It could be a poll on the 51st state. It could be a poll on just about anything. And that's aside

from all the other polls that are constantly taking place that we don't ever hear about. You know, what's your favorite laundry detergent and all that kind of stuff. And sometimes these polls are actually mixed in the sense that all the questions are asked. If they get somebody on the phone or somebody online who's willing to take part in a poll, they ask them all these questions, an omnibus poll, and then they pick out certain elements of it. So there are different polling organizations that use different methodology,

and we end up hearing about the numbers. The question for the week, this week, week from the bridge has been pretty straightforward. What do you think of polls? When you see a poll, what goes through your mind? What do you think about? Do you pay attention to them? Do you ignore them? Do you study them?

That's the question. And once again this week, lots of answers. And we appreciate that. You know, I get a lot of mail. I get a lot of mail every week at themansbridgepodcasts at gmail.com. Some of you have ideas about programs. Some of you have ideas about programs. Some of you have ideas about guests. Some of you are still under the impression that, hey, the bridge is a big organization and they've got

lots of staff and they say, put your team on this, that or the other thing. There is no team. This really is kind of like a hobby. And we play with ideas, and we've been extremely successful, and we appreciate that, and we're being successful because of people like you who tune in to The Bridge either as a podcast or they listen on SiriusXM or now that we have a couple of programs that are on YouTube, you watch that in huge numbers. Obviously, you know, the lead program is Good Talk,

which has very big numbers, both on the podcast and on SiriusXM and on YouTube, you know, more than 55,000 last week, I think it was, which for a YouTube podcast, I mean, this ain't Joe Rogan, but we still have a good time. And we're very proud of that. And the latest episode, Smoke Mirrors of the Truth, on Tuesdays,

for the length of the Liberal Leadership Campaign anyway, then we'll kind of reassess. But it's doing extremely well as well. And, you know, it's very different. It's a partisan podcast. You've got two partisans who sort of toss out their spin every week, and that's it. Okay, so let's get started on your letters,

because this is what Thursdays is all about. First letter comes from Frank Wang in Surrey, B.C. And once again, apologies to David Eby, Premier of British Columbia. For some reason, the other day, I called him David Abbey. We know it's David Eby. And so we got it right today. But let's start in BC with Frank Wang's letter. I typically ignore individual polls,

but we'll look at aggregators such as 338 Canada and 538 in the U.S. Polls can only show a very rough breakdown of how people feel about the world with a heavy recency bias. When it comes to political polling, the margin of error is typically large enough for closely contested races to go in any direction, such as the recent B.C. general election. I see a dire need to educate the masses on probabilities and statistics so voters don't misinterpret polls and

end up undermining our democracy. I'll just say this about aggregators. I know they go to a lot of trouble to weigh very carefully the different polls they kind of mix together but i've always been a little edgy about aggregators um because of that very fact i mean most of these polls are done differently they have different methodologies they they talk to uh different numbers of people um their margins of error are different. And so when you start mixing them together, and once again, I know aggregators go to some trouble to ensure some balance on that, but I've always been a little edgy about aggregators.

Kathleen Peterson in Regina. When I see a political poll, I look at who did the poll, what questions were asked and how were they asked what is going on in the world that would make the poll necessary right now and can I guess that who hired the polling company if applicable well you shouldn't have to guess we should know I think that should be something that's declared then I will take the results for what I think they are worth at that particular time.

Sometimes the polls themselves are pure propaganda. Depends on who is doing it and why. Christine Ramos in Toronto. I actively try not to listen to political polls because I know that even though I don't completely believe that they accurately take the pulse of the voter, they still influence me one way or another. I once worked briefly at a call center making these calls. This was the hardest student job I ever had while in university, so I make sure to answer

these calls, but no one I know has ever answered a call that had to do with political questions. Where are these responses coming from? The only people I ever managed to convince to speak to me were in the age group 60 plus. I clearly wasn't very good at that job. That's interesting, right? Victoria Clark in Paradise, Newfoundland, just outside of St. John's. I don't trust them. I don't trust them. I don't trust polls. I feel like they are skewed by the polling company.

I feel like they're bought off by parties. I pay attention to them, but I don't like them. They affect the vote of the ignorant, people who don't follow politics. They should be trashed. Who invented polling? I'm sure it was some campaign director somewhere in history trying to win for their candidate to sway the public. I'm curious about the history of polling.

Well, listen, Victoria, this isn't the proper form for a full lesson on the history of polling, but a short version in one form another, goes way, way back. But modern political polling is usually traced to George Gallup. In 1935, in order to get newspapers to subscribe to his weekly polls, Gallup promised he would predict the winner of the 1936 U.S. presidential election, and he said if his poll was wrong, he would refund all the money the newspapers paid him. The other major polling source of the day was the Literary Digest magazine, which had picked the winner in every presidential election since 1916.

The magazine interviewed 10 million voters. Gallup interviewed 3,000. But the magazine didn't use a representative sample of the population. The Digest predicted Republican Alf Landon would win with 57% of the vote to Roosevelt's 43%. Gallup forecast a win for Roosevelt with 54% of the vote. Roosevelt won 61% of the vote and Gallup's representative sampling became the norm. Gallup said a poll was like a town hall meeting, giving a voice to the common man. So there you go, there's a little bit of history. Heather Barth in Cochrane, Alberta.

Well before discovering that China interfered with our 2019 and 2021 election results, I didn't give polls more than a curious review. I found the poll results interesting, but they did not influence my decisions, and they didn't hold great weight to my vote. Now, though, I am suspicious, not of the poll itself, but rather of the results. Are they true? Are they accurate? Or more likely, are the results due to China or Russia interference? Their ability to influence social media messaging and cause instability within a country, which in turn influences elections, policy, and takeover decisions, is beyond scary. Laura Plant in Chilliwack, B.C.

When I hear the results of a poll, I realize it is how people are feeling today and may not reflect what they do in the ballot box on election day. I worry that poll results may make some people complacent, thinking their candidate of choice is safe so they don't need to bother voting. Yeah, that's really one of the dangers, right? Martin Partridge in Peterborough County, Ontario. I believe in Canadian political polls. They provide credible snapshots of the national mood.

I learned from Nanos this morning that Polyev's lead over the Liberals has dropped from 28 to 8 in just four weeks. That's an average drop of five points a week. Feels right to me. Canadians are crunchy right now. A little background. The Nanos poll was released on Tuesday. It's a poll of 1,000 Canadians and is said to be accurate to plus or minus 3.1 points, 19 times out of 20. It shows Conservatives at 38%, the Liberals at 30. This is a hybrid poll, part phone, part online.

Nick Nano says a 10-point swing from the Conservatives to the Liberals over the past few weeks has resulted in a horse race federally. A Leger poll that day had it at conservatives 40% to the liberals 31%. Yvonne Clifford in Cambridge, Ontario. Very short. I am a scientist. I analyze, of course. Doug Clark in Castlegar, B.C., west of Kootenai. It's the West Kootenai region of B.C.

Poll where David Eby is the Premier, if you didn't know that. Polls are a snapshot in time of the answer to the particular question asked by the pollster. I take it as information, but it doesn't impact my decision on how to vote. Tim Stott in Minnesota, Manitoba, on the western shore of Lake Manitoba. The first thing that pops into my head is, I wonder who paid for this? And I take all political polls with a grain of salt. Christy Gomuka in Edson, Alberta. That's west-central Alberta, about 200 clicks west of Edmonton.

I'm a political junkie. Specifically, I love the inside baseball of campaigns. When I see a poll, I often try to digest it in a non-political way by examining what recent events have changed the will of the electorate. Things I think will change the needle and show up on a poll sometimes simply don't. I also find polls helpful to inform me of my regional bias. Coming from Western Canada, I need to be constantly reminded that the political temperature in Alberta is different from other regions in Canada. Linda Keith in Richmond Hill, Ontario.

I received a text message just a few days ago asking which party I plan to vote for. Now, I try to be a good citizen. I make sure people are aware of elections, have signs on my lawn, help neighbors, contribute to the food bank, donate to charities when I'm purging things. But I draw the line at answering an anonymous survey from who knows who, knowing they can then possibly track me online. I feel a little hypocritical, as I do like to hear what direction the votes are leaning. But that is a red line for me. Leo Bourdon in Ottawa. I look into the actual question that's being asked instead of supposing what it has to be. Most voting intention questions ask, if an election were held today, which party

would you vote for? Not, who will you vote for whenever an election will be held? The conditional tense is an important factor. Maybe you have a nervous liberal caucus. Maybe a certain prime minister resigned because of this nervous caucus. Maybe Pierre Polyev just lost 90% of the content of what he was going to use in an election because of that resignation. Maybe the orange buffoon in the South will say stupid stuff, and we will be looking forward for a leader that will stand up to said buffoon. Conditions change, and polling changes. Well, it's true that that's what the question usually is.

That's why pollsters keep saying a poll is a snapshot in time Well, it's true that that's what the question usually is. That's why pollsters keep saying a poll is a snapshot in time and isn't supposed to be able to predict the future. Of course, if election results match a poll result, pollsters are pleased and may even brag. Oh yeah, they do. But this issue about the question is really important. You really want to see exactly what was the question that was asked because it's not always the same. And so most pollsters will tell you,

I know Bruce has said many times on our program over the years, it comes down to the question. What's the question that's being asked? So instead of just looking at the results, look at the questions that were asked. And if they don't tell you what the questions were asked, then you should probably ignore the poll. Anne-Marie Klein in Toronto.

I question who paid for it, how the questions were asked to manipulate or lead respondents, and what the motive is for asking. During elections, I strongly feel polls should be disallowed. They can be used to discourage people from voting, which is a form of voter suppression. Well, Anne-Marie, you're not alone in that thinking. There have been studies that suggest the same thing. Chris Wilson in Barrie, Ontario.

I feel angry that opinion polls take up so much media capital with no tangible benefit to society. Wouldn't it be better to invest our time discussing issues that actually matter? Marjorie Danton in London, Ontario. Very hopeful seeing a Leger poll stating with Carney as leader, liberalists are tied with conservatives. Maybe we take from polls how we want to see it. That Leger poll came out Tuesday

with a representative sample of 1,590 Canadians. Shows Liberals with Carney and Polyevs Conservatives, each with 37%. Mark Lebrun in Milton, Ontario. That's about an hour west of Toronto. I drive through that a couple of times a week, one way or another, going back and forth from Toronto to Stratford. Well, I don't drive through Milton.

I often stop in Milton rather to gas up or grab a coffee. But it's just south, just a little bit south of the 401. Anyway, Mark LeBrun writes from Milton, I'm of two minds about polls. On one hand, it interests me greatly to see how an electorate is considering issues, political leaders and parties. On the other hand, I worry that they often leave voters with a sense of futility, especially when they show that one party is far ahead of another. I can imagine people who don't have a strong sense of civic duty saying, why bother making the trip to the polling station

when my candidate of choice is practically guaranteed to win or lose? Marilyn Wallace, Fanny Bay, British Columbia. A few days ago, my phone rang, the call display alerting me to a survey company. Like always, I did not answer it. But I had a little discussion with myself, starting with how much I appreciate the deep understanding that Bruce Anderson, as a pollster, brings to the Bridge podcast. This led me to an uncomfortable feeling that, as a responsible Canadian, I should be willing to share my opinion and to be counted. After all, conclusions about the issues of the day

cannot confidently be reached without data. I resolve to pick up the call the next time. Penny Robertson in Napanee, Ontario. That's, well, it's between Kingston and Toronto, a little closer to Kingston. I find myself feeling more skeptical about polls now than I used to. Not about their validity, but about their purpose. This is because over the past 18 months or so, polls were being reported on almost a weekly basis. These polls provided a constant drumbeat about the Conservatives' rise in popularity

alongside the decline of Trudeau and the Liberals. Now that that trend is reversed, it seems that I seldom see the reporting of polls anymore. I'm wondering if polls are sometimes being used to influence the opinions of voters rather than just measure them. See, I don't know where you're getting your news from, but there's been a lot of emphasis on the turnaround in the polls. Michael McMullen in LaSalle, Manitoba. I love political polls, maybe because I'm a regular contributor to polls

on the provincial and national level. When the results come out, I eagerly consume the data to enlighten me on how my leanings differ from or align with my fellow Canadians. The differences make me cognizant of the attitudes and topics that influence others. I then adjust my perspective somewhat and tune my awareness to understand and better dialogue with my fellow Canadians. I think this is extremely important in these times. Thank you to the pollsters.

Philippe Taliana in Montreal. The surveys are a good snapshot of the moment. However, we rarely see the questions and have a look at the whole survey, and we should. Well, Philippe, you know, it's true that in media reporting, we often see or hear just the big result. X is ahead of Y. But reliable print media will publish the entire question and reveal the methodology of the poll.

Reliable TV media will use their websites for that, and the polling companies usually put everything on their websites too. So maybe it takes some digging, but the information Philippe wants is usually there if it's a good poll and not just an unscientific survey. Gary Gould in Brantford, Ontario. My first reaction when I see a poll is obviously to review the results, then determine if the author is credible.

To determine credibility, I look at the author's credentials and whether they are considered impartial. Then I try to determine if previous polls they have conducted have been credible. Finally, I give it some time for a second poll Then I try to determine if previous polls they have conducted have been credible. Finally, I give it some time for a second poll and or polls from alternate sources to determine shifts or patterns that may dispute or confirm the first poll. Do I take them at face value?

Never. That's a fool's game. Pat Chamago in Slave Lake, Alberta, about 250 kilometers north of Edmonton. I have a physical reaction. I'm either excited or disappointed. It happened with Harris and it's happening with Carney. But my physical reaction doesn't inform my decision on how to think or vote. I will do what I believe is right based on research and information that I have.

Ken Peleshock from Newstead, Ontario in the sovereign nation of Canada, he says, Assuming a poll is from a reputable source and it's not way out of whack with the others, I treat it as an indicator of a trend, like the stock market or employment data. It's just a tool to help you not get completely blindsided by the news. It doesn't always work. And the last one before we take our first break and hear from the random rander.

There's lots more to come. That'll be afterwards. But here's the last one for now. Lisanne Donnelly in Sutton, Quebec. I pay little attention to political polls. Why? I'm a bit of a news junkie, and a poll wouldn't change my leanings. Talk to people, and any one of them can surprise you by their thought process.

Today's poll could be old news by tomorrow Good point Okay Let's take a quick break And when we come back we'll hear from the Random Ranter That's all right after this and welcome back you're listening to the thursday episode of the bridge that means it's your turn the question of the week this week is what do you think of polls? And there've been lots of really good answers here.

I kind of crossed the spectrum on, on our thinking about polls. Surveys are trying to gauge your reaction to various issues. And there are lots more of them to come and we'll get to them. But first of all, right here on the bridge that you're listening to on SiriusXM, Channel 167 Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform, it is time for our friend,

The Random Renter. When it comes to our relationship with Donald Trump's Kingdom of America, we need to face facts. They're not an ally. They're not a friend. They're an adversary. An adversary whose malice is matched only by their ignorance. We can't wish that away.

And no matter how fond we are of talking about the good old days, they're not listening. For the stability of our markets and for our own mental health, we need to stop scurrying at their every threat and be the calm in the storm. Logic and reasoning is lost on Trump. He feeds on the souls of appeasers. The more we squirm, the more he likes it. So as far as I'm concerned, if Trump wants to stick a fork in the wall socket of North American trade, we should let him.

Instead of exerting ourselves trying to stop him, we should be figuring out ways to up the voltage. There's no point negotiating with him. He keeps moving the goalposts, and as long as we keep reacting, he'll continue to do so. He simply can't be trusted. His word means nothing. So instead of expending our energy trying to hold on to an expired reality, we should be trying to figure out ways to quietly exert ourselves. I mean, Trump doesn't play by the rules, so why should we? Who's to say the power from Ontario can't get switched off for a day or two because of a maintenance issue? Maybe we quietly slow oil production, take a pipeline offline for a bit, maybe some critical mineral

export permits get lost. You know, no big pronouncements, just some subtle, work-to-rule actions that fly under the radar, but still send a message. I mean, Trump is throwing wrenches into our economy by simply crying wolf. Isn't it time we threw a few wrenches back? Look, I don't know how else to say it, but Trump needs to learn that you can't suck and blow at the same time. Tariffs or no tariffs, America needs Canada's resources if they're ever to stand a chance at being great again. That includes our steel and our aluminum. Let him hit us with his 25% and let him stack some more on if he wants.

It might take some time, but we'll find other markets for our metals. The United States, on the other hand, will be screwed. They can't possibly make up the shortfall domestically anytime soon. They will absolutely need to continue importing from us and paying Trump's tariffs to boot. It will drive up prices, disrupt supply chains, idle factories, and cost jobs. American jobs. So let's call this bluff now, because at

some point, we're going to have to, or he'll just continue to do damage, leveling new threats. Trump only respects strength. In truth, I think he fears it. So we need to be strong. This isn't beer league hockey. It's game seven, elbows up. Together we can get through this, and I don't think it's going to take four years. In short order, life is going to get very hard and very expensive for Americans. At some point, the deplorables will come out of their maga ether and realize that they've elected a corrupt government, hell-bent on austerity, inequality, and consumption taxes. With all the economic chaos and uncertainty, Trump's promised golden age is looking a lot more like an epic powder keg of discontent. It's only a matter of time before it blows.

Some closed factories, a round of sticker shock at the grocery store, a racially charged police shooting? Who knows what will cause it? But when it blows, it's going to be ugly, and Trump's gaze will inevitably stray from us and on to something else. In the meantime, we just need to weather the storm and prepare for the challenges that are sure to come. This has been a wake-up call for Canada, but also an awakening for Canadians. I don't know about you, but I've never felt more patriotic than I do right now. Trump has forever altered our relationship with America, but that's okay. We will end up stronger for it. The Random Ranter for this week.

You know, the ranter, as I've said before, is just a guy, right? Doesn't work for any political party. He's not a registered whatever. He has a good job, works his tail off, travels a lot. He's in, as we've said before, he's in western Canada. He's on the prairies, but he travels around the prairies a lot. And he has strong opinions, just like so many of you do. So your letters are really mini-rants.

And the ranter gets a platform, I agree, that is unlike anybody else, but he delivers every week a nice little commentary. Sometimes you agree, sometimes you don't agree. Sometimes I agree with him. Sometimes I don't agree. Sometimes I agree with them. Sometimes I don't agree with them. But I always listen. All right, moving on. Back to your mail. Back to your rants.

Sharif Abdelazim. Abdelazim. When I hear a poll result, I try to contextualize it within my own experiences and the people around me, my bubble. I ask myself, does this reflect what I see, align with my views, or challenge them? It's a reflective process to engage whilst staying mindful of my own biases. Wayne Mills in Fort Erie, Ontario. I seldom pay much attention to polls other than showing trends. However, I get upset when I see polls endorsing the policies

of the two madmen running the country to the south. Stacey Marshall in Hamilton, Ontario. I don't pay attention to polls. I've never trusted them, and I generally resent them for influencing how people might vote or not vote at all. Kathy Mathers in Waterloo, Ontario. When I first hear a poll's results being reported, I take note and often react because it has either confirmed or contradicted my thoughts. But then I have to remind myself that polls can be easily biased and can often be misleading.

In order to understand a poll, you need to know the question that was asked, the sample size, how the respondents were selected, etc. Without this information, a poll can be misrepresentative. I don't always have time to research a poll, so I try to dismiss it and look elsewhere for information to inform my opinion. Mason Dernbach in Nanaimo, BC. My reaction is that I am instantly skeptical, and they don't influence my voting intention at all. I follow politics, perhaps to a fault, and yet I've never been a part of a poll. This makes me curious. Why? Polls reported in the legacy media generally feel more like attempts at manipulating the electorate than anything else.

Not sure why legacy media is your target, Mason. Would you trust a poll more if it's reported by Facebook or X or the Drudge Report? Kathy Thorpe in Toronto. When I see or hear political polls, I think of the 2016 U.S. polls that predicted Hillary Clinton would win the election. Well, the main one that did that was an aggregator. Michael Artendale in Sudbury. I'm likely like most voters, happy when our party leads in the polls and angry when they aren't. I do agree that the only poll that matters is on election day.

Remember, even in the last days of 2024, no one was expecting what has happened in the polls to have happened. And who knows, by the time an election happens, what the outcome will be. Actually, Michael, the 2024 U.S. presidential polls did pretty well. The final NBC News poll, for example, had Donald Trump and Kamala Harris tied at 49% each. Real Clear Politics had Harris 48.7%, Trump 48.6%. The New York Times had it Harris 49%, Trump 48%. The actual result was Trump 49.8, Harris 48.3. So not perfect, but certainly within the margin of error, all of those polls, which is something we should probably pay more attention to,

that margin of error. It's usually, you know, like three points either way, right? Anita DeRosier in Toronto. When I see polls, I'm skeptical. I'm not sure they are accurate, despite their protestations of mathematical accuracy. They have often proved to be the opposite. We now know there is always the possibility of influence by foreign powers. Tracy Wang in Surrey, B.C. B.C., that's where David Eby is the premier.

Tracy writes, here's why I don't take polls seriously. First, I follow politics pretty closely, yet I've never been asked to take a political poll, not once. So polls to me are irrelevant or vice versa. Second, polls are wrong a lot. They predict one thing and reality laughs in their face. They don't predict anything. The idea is they're giving you a snapshot of when they took the poll. Pollsters keep insisting they're reliable, but at this point, polsters are like weather forecasters predicting sunshine in the middle of a thunderstorm.

So do I trust political polls? About as much as I trust my neighbor's gossip. I listen, I smile, and I go on with my day. Okay. Pat Provo in Saint-Bazile-le-Grand, Quebec. Polls are part of life in a democracy. Many may groan about them, but I find them interesting. But I'm not overly influenced by them.

The day we actually vote tells the story. Mariam Rajabali in Kelowna, BC. Honestly, my first reaction always seems to be a question of questions. Who wrote it? Who requested it? Who benefits? Who's missing? Who was contacted?

Who declined? Was I asked or approached? I don't follow polls, and I'm not influenced by them politically. Garth Williams in St. Stephen, New Brunswick. As a disillusioned Gen Xer, I have two reactions when I hear of a new political poll. The first is, who do these pollsters talk to? I assume that most Canadians are like me,

part of the exhausted middle. And when they're done with work or getting ready for their night shift, the last thing they want to do is to get an automated call, especially one linked to a political poll. So who actually answers? Who are the people that the pollsters are using for their data? This brings up a more thoughtful reaction.

I assume that those who engage with pollsters are the lonely and the politically extreme. I don't see myself represented in the poll. I don't think polls are very useful, and after a moment of existential dread, I move on with my day, not thinking of the poll again. John Minchell in Comox Valley, BC. How do I react to polls and surveys? I'd say for the most part, I use them to follow the general trends during periods like elections, but I'm somewhat indifferent to them in general. To me, they are a single data point to use in the overall accumulation of information

from as many points of view as I can get, but they are not especially important than any other data point I'm gathering. Brian Smith in Toronto. Every time I hear of a new poll, my first question is, who paid for this survey? And is there a bias to either the questions or to the

interpretation of the responses? Robert Routh in Toronto. I've never been one to believe any political party spokesperson who says the only poll that matters is the one on election day. We also know that while they are saying this, there are paid party staffers breaking down the poll and analyzing where the electorate is and what it means for their party's fortunes. They also have their own internal party polls. None of this is cheap, so the fact that all the parties use them

tells us all we need to know about their value. Ian Hebblethwait in Moncton. I studied some stats at Dalhousie during my schooling, so I do have an understanding of how polls work. So when I hear of a poll, my first thing, if interested, is to go find more polls to get more data, because one poll is not enough to go on, in my opinion. I never base a vote on opinion polls, or at least have not yet in my 40 years of being eligible to vote.

Don Dufour in Ottawa. I don't flinch or react whatsoever to polls. Pretty much ignore them. They absolutely do not influence my voting decisions. Never have, never will. Michelle Kaufman in Toronto. I react to political polls with a good dose of skepticism. I can't help but think that they are merely clickbait.

As media companies compete for my eyes and ears, in a nutshell, polls are marketing. Adrian Hill in Crystal Beach on the north shore of Lake Erie about a half hour south of Niagara Falls. My habit of many years is to look at poll numbers, stats, and election results, and then work the numbers and study the other side. The other side of the ledger is often the most important of revealing

when looking at the future. Who is leading in the numbers has to be balanced by the numbers on the other side of the ledger. Trudeau wins with 34, but 55% support others. Don Whittemore in Kelowna, BC. Whenever I see or hear about a new poll, I always hear the voice of the guru of polls, Bruce Anderson, reminding me that a poll is just a snapshot in time. While I'm often either heartened or dismayed in the way Canadians are feeling at a particular moment, I know that nothing is carved in stone.

Here we go, the final three. Mark Manchester in Toronto. Do I pay attention to polls? Moderately. In the past. Perhaps with more interest currently, given our need for real and effective leadership. 2024. Polls feel like they are projecting betting odds, and I'm not a gambling enthusiast.

I wonder, though, if people use the concept of betting odds when making up their own minds, especially if fence-sitting. Do I trust in polls projecting an outcome? Would this lead me to strategize my vote, maybe changing how I vote? Maybe. More likely not. I would rather vote based based on accumulated knowledge than collected data. Kyle Addy in Peterborough, Ontario. My fear is that too many voters treat an election like a spectator sport and are more likely to vote for a candidate who's leading in the polls. Someone who they think is likely to win, rather than doing the research themselves to find which candidate or party is right for their interests and needs. In my view, polling is nothing more than selling a story, and I don't see any democracy value or any democratic value in that.

Good letter, Kyle. All these have been good letters. You know, there's a lot of difference of opinion out there about the value of polls, but I think that's reflected in the dozens of letters that I've been reading this morning, and there were many more as well. These are the ones that made the cut. And you know what's great?

So many of you are keeping it short. There's been a little editing in these, as those who've written them will know, to kind of fit what we're trying to achieve here on Thursdays. But for the most part, you've learned. You've found the secret ingredient. Here's the final one. And it's from our kind of joker of the week. We hear from him, well, we don't hear from him every week,

but we hear from him occasionally, which is nice. Gus Livingston in Dunville, Ontario. That's southwest of Niagara Falls. Here's Gus's response to the question, what do you think of when you read about a poll? Gus writes, I always act positively when I think of my favorite political poll. Lech Wałęsa, who founded the Solidarity Movement

and became president of Poland in 1990. Nothing but good memories for me when I think of my favorite political poll. All right, Gus. Funny guy. Thank you once again, everybody, for your letters this week. I'll file them away in our deep research into how Canadians respond to various issues. This week it was polls. All of them. So thank you for spending the time to write out your opinions.

We'll have another question next week for sure. Tomorrow, it's Good Talk with Chantel Hebert and Rob Russo. And as I say every Thursday, there's lots to talk about on the political landscape front. And Rob and Chantel will get to it. It just keeps on coming, keeps on rocking. There's lots to talk about. And there's lots to try and inform about.

And that's what we try to do on Fridays on Good Talk, which you can find either on SiriusXM, Channel 167, or you can find it on our podcast, audio podcast, or you can find it on YouTube., audio podcast, or you can find it on YouTube. It's there available on all three. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening and thanks so much for writing. We'll talk to you again in, well, about 48 hours. Thank you.