Ryan
poll: PNM
34%; COP 30%; UNC Alliance 5%
Port Spain
Petroleumworldtt.com
21 07 07
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.
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.
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.
Story
by Selwyn Ryan from the Trinidad Express
Trinidad
Express
Wednesday, October 17th 2007
Copyright
©2007 Petroleumworld. All Rights Reserved.
