09.27.2015 09:27 AM

KCCCC Day 56: what this election will be remembered for

  • The length, sure. The outcome, of course. All of that is important.
  • But Election 42 will be remembered for one thing most of all: the record number of shitty candidates. The ignorant, the bigots, the truthers, the anti-Semites, the drunkards, the scum of the Earth: those are the kinds of losers who were trying to win.
  • Don’t believe it? Then read CBC’s list, here. There have been more candidates dumped for insanity/idiocy than ever before, by all the parties. And there many more morons on the ballot who the parties still refuse to dump.
  • We’re on our way to Alaska shortly. So I have to go. But, I have one piece of advice for the people who vet candidates: don’t put your role on your CV. Because when history writes this election up, some of you are going to receive the blame for – literally, truly – hurting Canadian democracy. And some of you richly deserve it.


  1. Al in Cranbrook says:

    I don’t put much credence in Nanos polls, but…

    Looking like the debate in Quebec has hurt the NDP, to the benefit of the CPC…and possibly the BLOC. Moving in the direction reflected by the last Ekos poll. Trying to suck and blow at the same time appears to have finally caught up to Mulcair.

    Could get interesting. Libs strength is in Montreal, but Mainstreet poll shows Trudeau is in tough in his own riding, and they’re basically nowhere outside the city.

    Harper is singing the same tune as most Quebeccers – and the rest of the country – on the citizenship issue. Duceppe is a spent force, yesterday’s guy. Might be some surprises in Quebec election returns on Oct. 19th.

  2. Tim Shoults says:

    Is it really a decline in candidate quality? I wonder. Consider there is more public dirt available than ever before thanks to social media and more people than ever digging into it with access to publishing platforms (again, thanks to social media). None of which explains pee-in-the-cup guy, to be sure.

    • MississaugaPeter says:

      There is decline in candidate quality because there is a decline in competence on the campaigns. At the top you find a bunch of know-it-alls who want trained seals.

      Folks who knew what they were doing were discarded as has-beens, so those on top would not have anyone question their decisions. And they replaced them with mostly lazy hipsters who love to talk and hear themselves talk, and are incapable of the grunt work that campaigns require. The candidates are mostly pathetic because no one with substantial accomplishment is prepared to be a trained seal. Go to a riding debate and you will be probably be shocked by all the candidate’s lack of knowledge and experience.

      Let’s look at the NDP Director of Communications. How in the world does someone get that position, who two years ago was tweeting for the pope to F*** himself? Sure smart move telling the media that they are preparing to lead after the election. Not.

      CONS majority in 3 weeks. The only party with professionals running their campaign.

      • Mike says:

        I don’t disagree with your sentiment and most of your post. However, that last sentence makes me think you’ve drunk the Kool Aid. This CPC campaign has not been the professionally run affairs we have become use to from them. They have had as many if not more bozo eruptions as the other 2 parties. And they have made some amateur hour mistakes using stock photos. With all the money they have you think they could have hired a Canadian family to use in their lit. Or better yet, you’d have thought they could find a real life family that had benefited from their policies willing to pose for free.

        • Vancouverois says:

          I don’t know about the bozos– I can think of two or three Conservative bozo eruptions off the top of my head. And those have been dealt with. The more recent bozo eruptions have been from the Liberals and the NDP, and that’s not what you want just when the electorate is starting to pay attention.

          Anyway, I think that the bozos and gaffes with stock photos are mostly distractions. Elections have come to be much more about the leaders.

        • MississaugaPeter says:

          No Kool Aid Mike,

          Calling it as I see it and what I am hearing on the ground and see what has happened thusfar.

          The CONS have always used stock pictures. Not the wisest thing I agree, but it usually does the job.

          But look at the accomplishment so far by the professionals:

          Against a media that like most of Canada wants them gone, they are still No.1 in some of the polls.

          Against the backdrop of the Duffy scandal, which should have killed them, they are still in the middle of the mix.

          Against the economic news (recession) and complaints about their immigration policy, they are competitive.

          Professionals would have put the Conservatives away when they had a chance. Instead of focusing and clobbering the Conservatives, the amateurs were looking in the mirror and admiring themselves and imagining a move that will not happen.

          The CON professionals persevered and with a crapload of money left for the last 3 weeks, and with wisdom and knowledge (misguided but effective), they will clobber the two opposition parties.

          The longer election gave the CONS more time for the other two parties to mess up. And they have. From promising perpetual deficits to keeping candidates and staff they shouldn’t have. And if you think that the CON professionals will not use these and other messes to their advantage, you are in for a big surprise in the next three weeks. The amateurs admiring themselves will soon freeze when they see the headlights.

          And no, the amateurs do not deserve a second chance to repeat their mistakes. They need to be sent back to the house leagues.

  3. The Observer says:

    A few observations about the Niqab in this election:
    – symbols matter: they represent underlying facts, issues, beliefs
    – Canadians’ observations about the Muslim world are not dictated or restricted by what our political media class wants us to see (satellite television and the Internet make this so)
    – Canadians’ values are vastly different than those espoused in Muslim countries
    – depending on the region, Muslim values toward women range from mild paternalism to radical abusiveness (shaming, genital mutilation, honour killings – for a compendium read Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s works)
    – the Naqib is to many Canadians symbolic of the more radicalized aspect of Muslim culture
    – in a time of mass migration of Muslim populations, it is unsurprising that the ones who are surprised by this being an important issue are Canada’s political/media elite
    – the exchange between Hebert and Coyne on this sums up the dynamic well

    • Al in Cranbrook says:

      For those who missed the exchange between Coyne and Hebert…


      She was magnificent!

      • The Observer says:

        The French living near “no-go zone”, Muslim enclaves, and the little old British ladies whose neighbourhoods no longer offer spots for tea and crumpets but are instead dotted with minarets and the sound of call to prayer, I suspect wouldn’t be as flippant about Muslim migration as our Andrew is on that clip.

      • Vancouverois says:

        Thank you! I skipped the debate but heard about this exchange, and I’ve been looking for a video of it ever since.

      • marc says:

        I’ve always admired Hebert and never really liked Coyne but this exchange reversed the level of respect I have for both. Coyne is right to be upset that a racist policy is being used as a wedge issue. Doesn’t bode well when racism is stoked in an election campaign.

    • tom paine says:

      why not respect her right to wear the niqab if she,ll respect our right to place a very large fan beside her head when she takes the oath. She keeps veil, we see face. Mission accomplished.

  4. Kaiser Helmets 'n Motorbikes says:

    Thanks to “Idiot, Keyboard, and Google (IKG)” we can finally discover at least some of the disgusting pieces of trash that imagine themselves fit for our highest elected chamber. If anything, E42’s Moron Irruptions are good for democracy, they show all of us that in the privacy of the voting booth, party loyalty should never trump common sense.

    The real scary thought is how many of these morons made it to parliament in the 140 years before Google…

    PS: Sorry about the Kaiser posts killing your chances with Jesus T. If I was him, I’d never let anyone who allowed me to post on their site to run for my party…

  5. Joe says:

    I think this election will be remembered for its weak candidates both for MP an PM.

  6. Alan says:

    I’m so glad I’m old enough that I did all my stupid stuff before cell phones and social media.

  7. patrick says:

    Hmmm, either it’s just a cluster fudge on all sides or it’s something we are going to have to get use to in our now documented dawn to dusk age. Really, imagine all the imbeciles that wouldn’t have been elected in the past if a cell phone had been present.

  8. Jack D says:

    The question is, are they actually shittier candidates or do we just have access to more information than we have ever had in our modern democratic history?

    Think about it.

    Compare the emphasis placed on social media during the 2011 election and the emphasis being placed on it now. Of course social-media was used during the previous election but nothing like it is now. Its a huge benefit for the political parties to be able to utilize this medium to directly connect with voters; its cheaper and it has a personal touch to it. Candidates can speak to their constituents, parties can brag about their policies and platforms and jabs can be taken at each other without having to pay through the nose for TV ads.

    But its a double edged sword.

    Every single thing an individual says online is archived for someone in the future to dig it up and hit on the head with it. Unless you expunge your Twitter/Facebook feeds when you seek political office (which, honestly, these folks should have done), its there on record. In 2008, this wasn’t even remotely a concern. Unless you’d written about making quips about penises and Nazi camps, you were clear to run.

    Election 42 will serve as a lesson to all three parties; all of whom have failed miserably at thorough online background checks on their candidates. I don’t think they’ll be as careless come Election 43.

  9. Jane says:

    Warren: Read CBC list here, is a no go. I’d say they took it down so people could not see all the candidates dumped for insanity/idiocy, what ashame CBC showing their bias.

  10. Al in Cranbrook says:

    This is a worthwhile read…


    Some of it sounds a tad too familiar.

    A reminder of the value of a healthy democracy, which so many take for granted these days.

    …and the reality of slippery slopes.

  11. Doug says:

    Have the candidates become shittier or has the Internet made it easier to uncover the shit? Social Media Background Checker will be the growth job among public relations firms and political parties.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *