[Ottawa – February 25, 2025] The federal Liberal Party has edged ahead of the Conservative Party for the first time since May 2022 – albeit by a statistically insignificant margin. At 38 and 37 poi…
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.
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.