The final snapshot.
Mayoral voting intention
Decided and leaning respondents · exact unweighted base not supplied
Undecided respondents are excluded from candidate shares and shown separately above. Percentages may be rounded.
Source: Northbound Insights, supplied report figures. Response base: Decided and leaning respondents · exact unweighted base not supplied. Subgroup interview counts were not supplied.
The sharpest change is the narrowing contest for first place. Parrish remains within six points of Crombie, while 12% of all respondents remain undecided.
The change behind
the topline.
One electorate.
Different patterns.
Bonnie Crombie: name recognition
Reported recognition measure; exact question and response base not supplied
Bonnie Crombie: unfavourable
Reported favourability measure; exact question and response base not supplied
Alvin Tedjo: net favourability
Reported favourable minus unfavourable balance; component shares not supplied
Alvin Tedjo: late-deciding voters
Share among respondents deciding in the final week; subgroup n not supplied
Reported group differences are descriptive. Smaller bases, weighting and selection can increase uncertainty; no design-adjusted significance tests are claimed.
The lead narrows from 17 points to two
The supplied September 15 wave placed Crombie at 36% and Tedjo at 19%. By the final wave those shares were 33% and 31%. The gap narrows by 15 percentage points, combining a three-point decline for Crombie with a 12-point increase for Tedjo. Parrish moves from 32% to 27%, while Damerla moves from 10% to 6%.
Undecided respondents remain part of the story
The undecided share falls from 21% in the September baseline to 12% in the final wave. Candidate percentages use the decided-and-leaning base, while the undecided figure uses all respondents. The shrinking undecided share therefore cannot be assigned directly to any one candidate.
Voting stage changes the ordering
Among respondents reporting that they have already voted, Crombie leads Tedjo 36% to 30%, with Parrish at 29%. Among those intending to vote on election day, the supplied estimates put Tedjo at 33% and Crombie at 31%. These groups differ; the survey does not establish how many people from each group will contribute to the final electorate.
Recognition and favourability answer different questions
Crombie’s reported 96% recognition and 41% unfavourable rating describe different attributes. Tedjo’s reported +24-point favourability balance and 44% share of late deciders add context, but neither is a vote ceiling or a probability of winning. Exact question wording and subgroup counts have not been supplied with these figures.
What the wave comparison can show
The toplines document changes in reported support. They do not demonstrate that particular Damerla supporters switched to Tedjo, or isolate the effect of a tax or transit proposal. Respondent-level reinterview records and an appropriate analysis would be needed for those stronger claims.
How to read
this study.
The supplied methodology is preserved alongside its disclosure gaps, so the total sample, ballot base and subgroup estimates can be assessed separately.
Study design and disclosure · n=850
- Research provider
- Northbound Insights
- Report provenance
- Figures, release label and methodology supplied by Northbound for this website update on 25 October 2026. The underlying interviews have not been independently audited here.
- Release date
- 24 Oct 2026
- First publication of this web page
- 25 Oct 2026
- Fieldwork
- 21 Oct 2026 – 23 Oct 2026
- Population
- Eligible municipal voters in Mississauga
- Total interviews
- 850
- Ballot denominator
- Decided and leaning respondents · exact unweighted base not supplied. Effective sample size was not supplied.
- Undecided
- 12% of all respondents; not assigned to candidates.
- Interview mode
- 60% IVR telephone interviews via landline and cellphone; 40% SMS-to-web.
- Recruitment and sampling
- Described in the supplied release as a hybrid stratified random sample. Frame construction, SMS selection probabilities, overlap handling and screening details were not supplied.
- Weighting
- Age, gender, housing tenure and municipal ward, using Statistics Canada census parameters. Census vintage and numerical targets were not supplied.
- Supplied precision statement
- ±3.4 percentage points, 19 times out of 20
- Uncertainty assessment
- The supplied release reports ±3.4 pp, 19 times out of 20. A design-valid margin for the combined, weighted estimate cannot be confirmed from the summary alone. It is not applied to candidate gaps or subgroup results.
- Commissioning / funding
- Not identified in the supplied material.
- Questionnaire / response rates
- Exact wording, order, response options, response and completion rates were not supplied.
- Subgroup bases / design effects
- Unweighted and weighted subgroup bases, weighting distributions and design-effect estimates were not supplied.
- Tracking design
- Separate wave toplines are supplied. Reinterviewed respondents and individual transitions are not documented.
Sample size alone does not validate a probability margin for a mixed-mode study. Reported margins are retained as source statements in the disclosure record. They are not used as confidence intervals for the charts, point-estimate gaps or subgroup estimates.
The figures,
open to inspection.
- Northbound Insights · report figures and methodologyRelease 24 Oct 2026 · supplied for this website on 25 Oct 2026. Earlier-wave metadata is left blank where unavailable.
- Official election / referendum information ↗Election context and candidate records; not a source or endorsement of this poll.
This report presents the figures supplied by Northbound. It does not reconstruct respondent records, infer missing categories or claim independent verification of the fieldwork. A point-estimate lead is not a forecast of the outcome. Publication standards.