“Warren Kinsella's book, ‘Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse,’ is of vital importance for American conservatives and other right-leaning individuals to read, learn and understand.”

- The Washington Times

“One of the best books of the year.”

- The Hill Times

“Justin Trudeau’s speech followed Mr. Kinsella’s playbook on beating conservatives chapter and verse...[He followed] the central theme of the Kinsella narrative: “Take back values. That’s what progressives need to do.”

- National Post

“[Kinsella] is a master when it comes to spinning and political planning...”

- George Stroumboulopoulos, CBC TV

“Kinsella pulls no punches in Fight The Right...Fight the Right accomplishes what it sets out to do – provide readers with a glimpse into the kinds of strategies that have made Conservatives successful and lay out a credible roadmap for progressive forces to regain power.”

- Elizabeth Thompson, iPolitics

“[Kinsella] deserves credit for writing this book, period... he is absolutely on the money...[Fight The Right] is well worth picking up.”

- Huffington Post

“Run, don't walk, to get this amazing book.”

- Mike Duncan, Classical 96 radio

“Fight the Right is very interesting and - for conservatives - very provocative.”

- Former Ontario Conservative leader John Tory

“His new book is great! All of his books are great!”

- Tommy Schnurmacher, CJAD

“I absolutely recommend this book.”

- Paul Wells, Maclean’s

“Kinsella puts the Left on the right track with new book!”

- Calgary Herald


Team Trudeau trifecta

Gave a speech last week – and the week before that in Vancouver and Calgary – saying the same thing: the progressive coalition is women, young people and newcomers.

Without them, progressives can’t win.  With them all, progressives can’t lose.

Worked for Obama, it’ll work for Trudeau.



19 Responses to “Team Trudeau trifecta”

  1. Chris P says:

    Add professionals (i.e the intellectuals) + Don’t discount progressive business leaders either.

  2. Reality.Bites says:

    We have a lower percentage of “angry old white men” in this country than the United States does.

    We also have a 3 1/2 party system (I’m calling the BQ a half party because they’re limited to Quebec and were all but wiped out in the last election).

    To win, Trudeau (or whoever else gets the Liberal leadership) needs to take back Quebec for the Liberal party (being an unabashed federalist never stopped his father or Jean Chretien from winning in Quebec, even/especially with a PQ government in place) and take back the votes that have gone to the NDP.

    Not easy, but not unachievable either. There’s little love for Stephen Harper, and people don’t know Tom Mulcair. Trudeau, at his best, is an inspiring figure. People want to like him and want to vote for him.

  3. Sean says:

    My only problem with Ibbitson’s piece is that he argues that Obama’s win was because of social media and voter ID. Absolute nonsense. Every party in every campaign uses social media and voter ID. McCain, Romney and north of the border, Dion, Ignatieff were all social media / voter ID guys. Didn’t help them much. To say someone won because of social media and voter ID is to say that Toyota outsells Ford because Toyota has steering wheels. The only reason guys like Ibbitson yakity yak yak about social media is because the folks writing the cheques to keep them in business don’t understand it / use it. Therefore, these social media / voter ID arguments *seem* cutting edge, when they are fluff in the extreme. Obama beat Clinton because he represented a new generation of leaders, you could actually keep track of his positions (Iraq) and because Clinton’s entire campaign was decidedly about the past. He drew minorities too his cause BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK and had an authentic understanding of their plight. He did not attract minority voters because he had smart allecky computer guys who discovered a mystical trail of bread crumbs known as facebook. I understand social media and like certain aspects of it. Does it make a difference in campaigns? Absolutely not. It is no more sophisticated or effective than lawn signs.

    • Dan Calda says:

      Absolutely…because the demographic that uses social media the most…has the lowest voter turnout. It is just another tool…not the Holy Grail.

      But once again, Ibbitson proves his ignorance on a subject.

      Boggles the mind that someone actually pays him for this and all his other fluff.

      I don’t see a happy ending for the Globe snd Mail. Hopefully they will realize their irrelavency before it is too late…and purge all their Entertainment Tonight writers.

    • Tim Sullivan says:

      It may be been once when someone like Ibbitson, who as a side note has yet to correct in anything he writes, could have said it was because candidate A used phones, or took out newspaper ads.

      The manner of communicating with one’s constituency is less important than that one is communicating with one’s constituency in a manner each end of said communication understands, in media and message.

    • Bluegreenblogger says:

      Obama won (twice) because people who did not historically vote actually got out and voted. This happened at the margin, providing just enough enhanced turnout to tip the balance. The significance of Social media is in the people it reaches who are really unreachable by other, more conventional means. If you really look at Trippi with the Dean campaign, and then his inheiritor, Obama (with most of the same team onside), you will see that they acheived something remarkable. They used the TWO way street that is social media, rather than treating the rubes to passive ‘billboard’ style messages and lawn signs. They used the two way street to engage people who never would have voted otherwise. Now, if you critique Trudeau comparing his use of ‘social media’ to Dions, Ignatieffs, or Harpers, or just about anybody else in Canadian Politics, then you are missing something significant. I think Trudeau is engaging a BIG slice of people who would not give a shit about electoral politics otherwise. They likely do care about politics, and political issues, they are just totally disengaged from what most people think of as the usual channels. If he is actually able to engage a significant number of people not normally expected to vote, then it is game over for the CPC. By significant, I mean increasing turnouts by a couple of percentage points, and that is all that will be needed.

  4. Jon Evan says:

    What do “women, young people and newcomers” want that they don’t already have?

    • Warren says:

      Peace, order and good government.

      • Dan Calda says:

        Bingo…

        I would also add a gov’t that doesn’t perpetually lie to its citizens.

      • Poulter says:

        Sorry guys—most of us believe we have those qualities in our government now.

      • Jon Evan says:

        Why not jobs? Interestingly, that’s what Romney thought jobs should be the focus but not: he lost to the one with record unemployment as a pres! So, perhaps jobs isn’t the issue. Free health care (though rationed) and more benefits like in Europe with shorter work weeks, earlier retirement, and higher pensions. Now that would be good gov’t! Would I vote for that? Would you? Would this be good gov’t? Is this what the americans voted for from Obama?

  5. Poulter says:

    Obama won the election because he received 90% of the Black vote and 70% of the Hispanic vote—-forget the women and youth vote—he had it won with those 2 groups.
    A small majority women and young people may tend to vote for Trudeau but in Canada the newcomer vote is very diverse. There is nothing similar between the Hispanic vote in the U.S. and the Muslim, East and South Asian, Polish, etc. vote in Canada.

    • Dan Calda says:

      Two problems with your comment…

      If a “small majority” of women vote for Trudeau…the election is his. You add some minorities, some progressives and many vets…then you have a winning formula.

      As the Republicans showed surprise and how out of touch with reality they are…Conservatives have the same problem.

      Jesus land is much smaller in Canada, and more diverse then in America. Despite Jason Kenny’s attempts to woo the minority vote…the Trudeau name still resonates with many ethnic communities.

      But where the Conservatives will be hurt the most is among vets. The level of disgust is astounding of their treatment. Do remember that throughout the 50′s,60′s and 70′s … most vets voted Liberal…due to the Liberal Party’s treatment of them…and its policies were much more in tune with their values.

      …and before the Conservative talking heads have a stroke…I would like to remind
      ya’ll that as a percentage of GDP…no PM spent as much on the military as Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

      • GFMD says:

        The vet vote is a lot smaller in Canada than the US and a lot of ‘em feel that harper’s shield bangin’ is “giving them the recognition they deserve”. Many others have a “Martin made cuts, hate the Libs!” mentality akin to a westerner and the NEP. While putting decent benefits in place for soldiers should be part of any government’s agenda, I’m not sure how reliable or useful the group as a whole is.

    • Tim Sullivan says:

      In a democracy, the number of votes is what counts. Votes have no colour, sex or religion. So, your point it, what exactly?

      • Poulter says:

        My point is as a rebuttal to the blog host who maintains that just like Obama, Trudeau will win by targeting the colour, sex and religion of voters.

  6. Lawrence Stuart says:

    “Worked for Obama, it’ll work for Trudeau.”

    I’d like to believe it. But I’m not sure I do. Or at least it won’t be a given, or easy.

    Canada is actually more complex, perhaps.

    Look at Nate Silver’s graph here: http://preview.tinyurl.com/byl9rzm .

    The interesting bit is in the swingy middle part of the graph. And the key to the swingyness is demographics, not? From Pennsylvania to North Carolina, the demographic rise of the McGovern coalition is what changes the tide. In the US the Rovian wedges cut deep, firmly polarizing the electorate. But in the end it was demographics that changed the political advantage: the cleft has begun to favour those who they were intended to marginalize.

    I like Justin, I really do. And I will support him, in spite of my deep distrust of political dynasty. But aren’t the cleavages here much more complex, as in multiple and overlapping? Our Cons have very wisely chosen not to pound so hard on the Rovian wedge issues. The progressive coalition is divided between Libs, Dippers, and Bloc.

    It’s gonna be a tough fight … uphill.

Leave a Reply

*