Here. Changes in evaluations of party leaders and institutions are equally small. Interestingly, leaders are mostly evaluated positively, while institutions are evaluated negatively (in the piece, there's a typo in the parliament's net evaluation result).
The smoother seems to capture a slight decline for PP and a rise for IU, but that could be a function of the particular mix of companies that have done polls recently and the kind of "house effects" attached to their polls. A better way to ascertain this is to regress scores on dummies for companies (leaving CIS as the reference category) and dummies for time periods (months, in this case, considering the small number of polls). The results suggest that:
1. After their peak in April, PSOE lost about 3 points until today and has remained mostly stable since September. 2. Estimates clean of house effects for PP show a very small decline from October to November (.6%) but that only leaves them at the point they already were in September. Effect of the debate? An hypothesis, but impossible to say just on the basis of these data, really. 3. IU is the only party experiencing significant changes recently, up more than 1 p.p. since September.
Little doubts here, although one might argue that Rubalcaba did less badly than one would expect from current voting intentions. Don't forget, however, that these are self-selected samples too in a way, in this case, of those voters who watched the debate in whole or in part. And these "flash" polls take place very quickly after the debate, which makes fieldwork difficult and is certainly associated with low contact and response rates, with what that implies for sample quality. And that the effects of debates are thought to be relatively small. Etc.
SIC Notícias made this piece about the last Eurosondagem poll. Expresso published this piece summarizing the results concerning mass opinion about the budget measures. Maybe more about this poll has been published and I just missed it. What I did not miss, however, are the actual marginals published here. And there are results I haven't seen published anywhere (rounded):
P.20 Acha que o governo cortou o suficiente na despesa?
P21. Tendo em conta o Orçamento de Estado, vai mudar hábitos de vida no próximo ano?
P.27 Se estivesse em idade ou tivesse possibilidades considerava emigrar?
I really don't like P.27, as it deals with too many hypotheticals. P21 was followed by a question for those who answered "Yes", and "Eating Out" was the most selected option for cuts in personal expenditures, and this is vaguely interesting too (although not "political" enough, I assume). But it is P20, and its deemphasis in the news coverage, that I find particularly interesting. Sometimes, journalists are puzzled by apparent contradictions in polls: "If a huge majority of people disagree with the cuts, as responses to other questions in the poll show, how can then a plurality believe the government has not made enough cuts?", I imagine them thinking. But the results are not necessarily contradictory:
1. People may disagree with the concrete cuts and prefer other ways of reducing expenditure. This is especially inviting in this poll because those "other cuts" that might make them "enough" remain unspecified.
2. "Expenditure" may generically sound bad, in the sense of wasteful. People may react to the question by thinking that it is a positive thing to cut "waste", that more should be done in cutting it, and that the government has not done enough of it. This does not mean they should support the concrete government plans at all.
3. Talking about "enough", without specifying "enough for what", further increases vagueness and allows for these apparent contradictions. Does "enough" mean that there will not be more? Does it mean that it will be "enough to satisfy our creditors"? Does it mean "enough to prevent Portugal from entering the Greek death spiral"? Etc.
In sum, it is a very good thing that ERC allows us access to the poll data unfiltered by whatever journalists think is newsworthy in those data.
P.S.- A few days later, these results were published.
Apparently, the Daily Telegraph reports that a 3/5 majority is needed to pass a resolution permitting a referendum. If so, this would probably make it impossible. But although this may be totally clear to a constitutional lawyer, it is not clear to me at all. Article 44(2) of the Greek constitution provides for two sorts of referendums: on "crucial national issues" and on "serious social issues". In the former, government proposals must be passed by an absolute majority in Parliament. In the latter, 2/5 of parliament proposes and a 3/5 majority is needed. But although we could spend a lot of time thinking about the fascinating distinction between "crucial national issues" and "serious social issues", I don't think we need to. The main distinction seems to be between who proposes the referendum. If government, absolute majority. If parliament, qualified majority. Therefore, if we are talking about the former, as I think we are, the referendum is not as impossible as a 3/5 majority would suggest. Unlikely, but not impossible.
It should also be mentioned that when the possibility of such a referendum was first announced - last June, no less - the government also announced that it would introduce changes to several procedural aspects of referendums, which nonetheless must abide by article 44(2) of the Constitution.
According to the database at the Center for Research on Direct Demcracy, Greece has not held a referendum in 37 years. The last time was in 1974, after the collapse of the military Junta, to decide whether Greece would remain a Republic. Indeed it did, 69% to 31%. Turnout was 76%.