Monday, August 22, 2011

Parti Québécois Faces Oblivion - Again

According to this poll done for the Journal de Montréal, the Parti québécois is facing some very dire straights these days:
Selon un sondage Léger Marketing réalisé pour le compte de l’Agence QMI, le Parti québécois n’a plus que 24 % des intentions de vote, après répartition des indécis. Le PQ se retrouve donc 10 points derrière les libéraux de Jean Charest qui consolident leur première place.

... Même s’il continue de tergiverser quant à son avenir politique, François Legault a plus que jamais le vent dans les voiles.

Si elle devenait un parti politique, la Coalition pour l’avenir du Québec (CAQ) récolterait 31 % des suffrages – 35 % chez les francophones – devançant le Parti libéral de Jean Charest (27 %) et le Parti québécois (16 %)
In English, the PQ sits 10-points behind the governing and should-be-dead Liberals of Jean Charest, 34% to 24%. When you mix in Francoise Legault's Mystery Party/Coalition pour l'Avenir du Quebec, the PQ drops to just 16% of the vote, with the Liberals at 27% and the CAQ at 31%. The smaller parties are pretty inconsequential to these numbers, with the ADQ sitting at 14% and QS sitting at 12% - stable numbers for them both. Reading over the article, it seems PQ leader Pauline Marois' numbers make her just as inconsequential too.

This is pretty reminiscent of the PQ's trouble before the 2007 election, when polling put them statistically tied with the Liberals and the ADQ, but the election actually put them third.

Now imagine what happens when they're possibly 15-points behind the leader in what should be another three-way race.

4 comments:

  1. And in April the PQ gave Marois 93.1/% support. At the time, Daniel Turp, said that Marois forged a united party. It's amazing how quickly that all changed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When 31% is your highest high, 12% is a significant number that could catch you a half dozen seats.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That 12% for the QS was without the CAQ option; I have no idea what they're at with it, Leger didn't say.

    ReplyDelete