09.28.2015 08:28 PM

Munk Debate open thread 

Who won? Who lost? Personally, I think Rudyard and the Munk people did. Best debate yet. 

Will do a roundup of your views in KCCCC tomorrow. Comment away! 

104 Comments

  1. Ann Jarnet says:

    It was a good debate. I barely cringed. Surprised to see Trudeau do as well as he did; a bit of redemption! I still see Harper as lame, but apparently over 30% want someone that lame to lead us. Mulcair showed meanness which is never good in the long term. My favourite line: big sleigh; no dogs.

    • Montréalaise says:

      Love that ‘big sleigh, no dogs’ expression. It’s the Canadian version of the Texas saying ‘big hat, no cattle’.

      • Vancouverois says:

        Sorry, but I don’t. I don’t like any of the obviously pre-rehearsed one-line zingers; I find them cheap. And that goes for all the parties.

        (I like your username here, though!)

  2. Ed Flint says:

    I liked the zinger that Bob Rae was a liberal after all,,Funny I thought Tom was to.

  3. The Observer says:

    A brief observation (or two):

    – There was no more passion shown by any leader on any issue than Trudeau’s defence of terrorists’ rights to remain Canadian citizens

    – that may be the greatest example of doubling down on a losing hand in Canadian political history.

    • Peter Jay says:

      Bang on. Move to winnable ground. He’s going down in part for being a naive idealist, playing right into “not ready”.

    • Michael Bluth says:

      Well played The Observer! That has to be the comment of the night!

      Trudeau looks to be in a solid second place now. I wonder if he is just fluking into this?

      He was theatrical and a little histrionic.

      He cut off Mulcair a few times. His passion just seems a little … off. Too strong. Sounds contrived. Almost incoherent past a basic talking point on any subject.

      The policy is weak in places. Even laughable in others. Why make a stand on letting terrorists keep their passports? Chantal Hebert made a weak argument for the success of this tactic. The holds two passports, might be charged with terrorism, demographic seems pretty small. Trudeau hurt himself with that.

      Yet, inexplicably, it is all working to an extent. The campaign appears to have become a two-horse race with Mulcair falling off.

      Does Trudeau capture the apoplexy felt by many progressives when they think of another Harper majority? Is the angry hipster a powerful new voting block?

      I felt he went to the well one too many times with reference to Pierre. The first time was arguably touching. The second time was too much.

      • Krago says:

        Trudeau and his handlers recognize the truth about modern political debates: the only thing that matters is the clip that makes it onto the news afterward. All his clipworthy moments are scripted and rehearsed in advance, and all his interruptions are intended to specifically ‘step on’ his opponents clips. Mulcair hasn’t learned this yet, and that is how Trudeau keeps ‘winning’ debates.

        • Mark says:

          Mulcair fails to follow this formula, which Justin (and Harper) are better at: (1) Deliver zinger (2) Follow with brief sharp soundbite of your position.

          Mulcair tends to do this instead: (1) Deliver zinger (2) Pause to give audience this weird smug and triumphant look, like “Did you catch that? I just got him with a good one! Let’s just bask in that for a moment.”

          That silent space gives his opponent enough time to return the zinger with a topspin.

        • MississaugaPeter says:

          Winning what, the debates? According to who? And has it exactly spilled over to people believing he is a good choice for prime minister?

          On a daily basis, Nanos releases polling results for national ballot and preferred PM. You know what, both Trudeau and Mulcair are killing it. Not. As preferred PM, both Mulcair and Trudeau are hovering around 25% while Harper is well ahead over 30%. It’s fine and dandy that good folks like me identify as Liberals, but if we do not think that Trudeau is the preferred PM, it does him no good if that is what determines if we cast a vote and who we vote for if we do. Big, big disconnect here.

          Look, Trudeau has surpassed everyone’s expectations in the debates. But that does not mean he has won anything. I am a hack and I didn’t make the special effort to see it last night. Saw the others. Part of the reason is what channel is CPAC on Rogers Mississauga. Part of the reason is I was busy with life. As Warren stated, it was 5:00 p.m. in B.C. and he was among the few watching it there. Big difference between a high schooler exceeding expectations by graduating and by getting accepted into nanotechnology at uWaterloo.

  4. Steve says:

    I one of the best parts of the debate was when Justin defended his fathers record. While Trudeau Sr was not perfect he was a good PM. Harper was off his game and it really showed that he did not want to be at this debate. Tommy boy came across as phony with his answers. So if anybody won the debate it would be Trudeau as he came across as a leader and his responses to the questions seemed very sincere

  5. KBab says:

    Mulcair seems as eager to convince as Harper is to deceive. Trudeau came through, he looked genuine. Time for a new generation.

  6. Bryan Kelloway says:

    Was there a debate? I was busy watching the Blue Jay’s game.

  7. Performances all good. Lots of good zingers by all.

    Neither Mulcair or Trudeau held a candle to Harper for appearing to have a thoughtful perspective on every situation, regardless of whether you agree with him. Harper’s failings are not in this arena. And, the reality is, there is always room for disagreement about what should have been done, and no one can predict with perfection the impact of today’s choices. I have doubts that Mulcair would necessarily do any better. I am certain Trudeau woudl not.

    Trudeau is a hollow shell and has no shame. He made a more disgraceful use of his father’s memory than anyone else. He’d obviously been planning that one, because he jumped at the first opportunity, and it wasn’t even a good one.

    • bobbie says:

      Good points Michael.

      Trudeau opened the door to his father’s legacy. Mulcair and Harper walked through that door and took full advantage.
      Harper dominated. Good grasp on all issues and he answered all questions.
      Mulcair had the most zingers. Dodged some questions put to him…the first one comes to mind. Did Mulcair stem the polls from bleeding support by his performance. Maybe, bu if he did it’s because Trudeau among the two men kept trying to interrupt both Mulcair and Harper. Dove right into the “he’s just not ready” role being painted for him. Passion dealt too aggressively risks coming off as spoiled- bratish.

  8. Ian Turnbull says:

    The passion Justin displayed in support of terrorist’s rights in Canada was very moving. I think he locked in that segment tonight.

  9. I think the bigger issue is who lost. And that would be Mulcair. Remember when everyone thought because of his lawyerly background that he would kick ass in the debates? Good times.

  10. Brent Crofts says:

    Brett Cecil. Hands down.

    As for the debate, Trudeau and Mulcair beat the tar out of each other and Harper left relatively unscathed.

    Random observation 1: whoever told Mulcair to take a shot at PET should be fired. Ugly cheap shot that Trudeau reversed nicely.

    Random observation 2: the moderator asked Trudeau how he’d deal with Putin and the audience immediately laughed. Ouch.

    Random observation 3: Harper and Trudeau received consistent applause and Mulcair received virtually none. Minute resting.

    Just my $.02.

    • Brent Crofts says:

      Apologies. Last word should be “interesting”. Sorry.

    • ralphonso says:

      Mulcair didn’t take a shot at his Dad, just the war measures act. But Trudeau’s campaign have been waiting for a reason to wax on about his Dad and they effectively did this. Well played Trudeau.

  11. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Best debate, no contest. Hope everyone else involved in setting up these events took some notes.

    Harper was the only one to answer questions and speak directly to the topic, and with authority.

    I can’t even begin to figure out where Trudeau is coming from; his recollection of history verges on fairy tales! I don’t even want to think about him representing Canada at G-7 or G-20 sessions.

    And Mulair’s condescending style gets really tired, really quick. He’s way off base with where the majority of Canadians are in international affairs.

    And both Mulcair and Trudeau scare the hell out of me when it comes to climate change!!! Both clearly are ready to drain taxpayers’ paycheques on God only knows what kind of half baked, totally bankrupt idiocy!

    Once again, Harper clearly is the only adult in the room.

    • Al in Cranbrook says:

      Harper scored a direct hit on Trudeau when he noted that Canadian citizenship was stripped from Nazi war criminals, but somehow it’s not right to take it away from people whom were planning a 9/11 scale attack on our own soil? Just down the street a couple of blocks?

      I’d say that pretty much sums it up in terms people can understand.

      • Ridiculosity says:

        Al, let me sum this up in terms you understand.

        Donate the blue shirt you have to a local shelter and buy a red shirt instead.

        Trust me on this.

      • RogerX says:

        Yup…. and Trudeau didn’t have his and his family’s lives directly threatened by these activist terrorists who hate Canada ….. like Harper did!
        (The CPC has increased Harper’s personal security with private security agents to supplement the RCMP. Harper haters are all over the place due to the 10 years of demonizing hate propaganda peddled by the regressive leftist loonies in our midst.)

      • zing says:

        Hey Al. The Nazi war criminals were not stripped of citizenship because they were Nazi war criminals. They were stripped of citizenship because they lied on their applications.

        • Bill MacLeod says:

          ….because, after all, lying is a far greater crime than genocide.

          They stripped their citizenship because they were war criminals, just like they busted Al Capone for income tax fraud. (Or was it mail fraud?) No matter. You make the laws of the day fit.

          If this is the issue JT chooses to stand on, he’s standing without me.

          Bill

        • Cory says:

          So if somebody gets citizenship as part of their plan to carry out an attack is that not lying?

          Is pledging loyalty to Canada and then attacking it from within not lying?

          • zing says:

            Apparently not, because C-24 was passed, even though existing law already had provisions for stripping citizenship from people who lie to obtain it.

          • Cory says:

            Terrorism was included specifically to clarify that the existing law can apply in those cases.

            Is Trudeau proposing to scrap the old law that has been around since WW2?

        • Vancouverois says:

          Just like terrorists who immigrate to this country and swear an oath of loyalty that they never intend to honour, then.

          Or does that kind of lying on their application not count for some reason?

          • lance mclean says:

            Bingo, was just going to post that. The Oath of Citizenship requires the person swearing the oath to be faithfull to the laws of Canada. So by “Zing’s” logic they should be be able to remove the citizenship from them as they too have deceived the Canadian government in their citizenship process.

  12. m5slib says:

    A few thoughts:

    If Trudeau wins, it’ll be in big part because of debates – something that would have thought to be his weakness. However, three weeks left, so big if.

    Second, the Liberals have been the most agile in this election. They’ve adjusted to differentiate themselves from the NDP policy wise, and tonight’s debate, which Trudeau won, was a good adjustment from the French consortium debate. It’ll play well in Quebec to capitalize on the NDP fragility.

    Third, campaigns matter, and Tom Mulcair is not a campaigner. When he tried to be nice, he looked creepy. When he’s himself, he’s condescending. Further, the NDP keeps talking about themselves and why they deserve to govern rather than what they’ll do with government.

    Fourth, visuals. No one has really focused on visuals much in the debate, but I don’t think Harper’s have been very good. Even when he has good words, he looks tired, his suits look cheap, and he just doesn’t look energetic. Further, when he’s watching the others he has odd expressions or he rolls his eyes like he did against May.

    Finally, this was a good debate issue wise, and it’s been a good election issue wise. It’s been fought on policy more than any federal election I can remember. I’m only 31 though.

    • Ridiculosity says:

      In just over twenty days, ‘Just Not Ready’ may well become the most lame political slogan in the history of Canadian political advertising.

      • ralphonso says:

        Or the most prescient. Remember – just because his team wins doesn’t mean it’s all because of him.
        Be wary of hubris.

  13. Christian Giles says:

    Debate? Who the fuck cares?? The Jays are playing man!

  14. Maps Onburt says:

    I don’t know how you were watching it but the translator speaking English at volume 10 when the leaders were speaking English at volume 2 behind her drove me to distraction. I was screaming at the tube for her just to STFU. I agree the format was very good EXCEPT for the fact that Trudeau brought his own audience (or Liberals pay no attention to the rules) and he still couldn’t shut up when it wasn’t his time to speak. So much for them turning off the microphones. Trudeau talking over Harper on that bit about two tier citizenship was intolerable. Frankly, I’d give the debates back to the consortium for production values but keep this debate format (and relatively impartial moderator). It was by far the best of a bad lot of debates in my mind.

    I thought Mulclair must have taken too much Prozac or something. He’s lost the creepy grin but he seemed even more creepy… with… his…. sloooowww… delivery…. He did get in a couple of good shots at Trudeau (although Trudeau’s laugh track didn’t like it – since when is OK to boo at a debate???) Harper looked calm and steady and wasn’t rattled by either of the two. I think he got the biggest line of the night with his “I think the threat we face today is not CSIS, it is ISIS”. His positions on most of the big issues will resonate with most Canadians agree with the war on ISIS, don’t have a problem with some government capability against terrorists, who don’t want a carbon tax (however much the left tells us differently), think we should spend what ever time it takes to vet Syrian refugees and that Free Trade is a good thing now just like it was in 1984 when both the Liberals and NDP campaigned against it. Listening to Trudeau sing the merits of Free Trade reminded me how hypocritical Liberals can be at times.

  15. Ridiculosity says:

    Trudeau will be the next Prime Minister of Canada.

    Why?

    Because he’s the ONLY one that deserves to lead this great country.

    Vision. Courage. Conviction.

    And, passion. Something this country has been sorely lacking for the last decade.

    A big country deserves nothing less than a big agenda for growth – and social progress.

    • Rotten Ronnie says:

      Wow your rose-tinted glasses never get a pause, do they? The ONLY one that deserves to lead this country is a failed part-time drama teacher dilettante? Suuurrrreee Vision! Courage! Conviction! Faster than a speeding bullet! Able to leap the tallest buildings! Toker of the phattest tokes!! What a facken joke – if the liberal vision for the country is this pablum puking fratboy, then this country is truly facked if they ever get power.
      btw did you see the NDP version of the escalator ad? Abso-fucking-lutely hilarious – and bang on. Made me want to vote for the guy even though i despise the NDP.

    • Curt says:

      You really are ridiculous !!!

    • RogerX says:

      You could be right but “what’s in it for me” …. aka “pecuniary interest” ?

    • George says:

      Ridiculosity, I’m not sure who’s posts I find funnier – yours, or “Scott”‘s or “Al in Cranbrook”‘s – you dyed-in-the-wool partisans make for entertaining reading, regardless of your political stripe. Spin, spin, spin. Turn lemons into lemonade.

      One reason I visit this site multiple times a day is because even though the guy who runs it is clearly affiliated with a certain party and political philosophy, also demonstrates independent and logical thought, and calls a spade a spade.

      You Kool-Ade drinkers should try it sometime. Life is better when you aren’t always spinning.

      JT has about as much conviction as his speech-writers can generate for him on a given day. He may win, but if he does it will only be because of two things: 1) an appetite for change and 2) the left lining up behind Trudeau’s new NDP as part of an anybody-but-Harper movement – but traditionally strategic voting has never worked.

      Interesting times ahead. I thought JT did alright in the debate, Harper appeared the most knowledgeable and Mulcair was the big loser.

      I also think they need to hire translators who speak English without a strong accent and a soundman who understands that it makes sense to reduce the volume of the candidate to “1” and have the translator at “8” instead of the candidate at “5” and the translator at “11”. You could hear the distortion from the meters peaking.

  16. Vancouverois says:

    I can’t say. I only saw snippets of it in the other room. All I noticed was that the participants all looked very, very orange — either there was something wrong with the TV hue control, or the NDP must have had a plant in the makeup staff trying to send a subliminal message.

    In a completely unrelated note, I just got the most recent issue of Macleans. Guess who’s featured on page 20 (“The brain behind Justin Trudeau”)?

    Hint: it isn’t Justin Trudeau.

  17. gyor says:

    Mulcair, he nailed Trudeau hard on bill C-51. Mulcair had the best answers to the questions.

  18. Jon Evan says:

    JT high on caffeine, high on himself, but an idiot on citizenship for terrorists! He definitely lost being very unprime ministerial and acting like it was a high school debate making the girls cry with the PET drama. Mulcair was sedated or tired and very condescending. PMSH was calm, reasonable, and presented well. He won this excellently run debate!

  19. RogerX says:

    Trudeau was aggressive… Harper was defensive… Mulcair was lawyer-ly …… and all three did rather well presenting their positions…. and all much ado about nothing much except for the political junkies and media mavens to argue about.

    So the simplistic voting decision by the equally simplistic voters is whether they want a ‘change’ or stick with the same ‘old’. According to the recent polls about 32% want the same old while about 68% want change. Do you see the problems? Who will be the best agent of change?

    The only way the Harper Cons can win a majority/minority is to effectively depress the voting turnout, and I believe they are betting that the prolonged election campaign will simply cause a voter fatigue that will benefit them with GGOTV — Grind’nGet Out The Vote strategy.

    That plus winning over more Blue Grit Liberals to their side by continuously attacking and undermining Justin, and thus filtering out the Blue Grits for the Conservative party. It’s a dicey strategy that may produce an unexpected result on October 19th. I bet the Cons are praying for snow/rain/brain drain on that day.

  20. UFP Ambassador says:

    Moderator asks Trudeau how he’d deal with Putin. Audience laughs as if by reflex. And remember, it’s a foreign policy debate. No chance this lightweight becomes PM.

  21. Pattie says:

    Interesting to read comments – usual loyalists and paid trolls/some use same name on other sites; The capacity for critical thinking, comparative analysis and balanced assessments is a learned skill. So many “Sheeple” find it easier to accept the “Spin/Gospel” espoused by eloquent speakers/salespersons that the pro/con reflection just gets overlooked. Also avoidance and denial loom large too. Sigh.

  22. Stuart du Kamp says:

    Harper showed his mastery of this file (again). Trudeau acted like a petulant debutante (again). Mulcair? Was he there?

  23. DJ says:

    Trudeau showed the most passion and came away with some good clips. For people who want change, they may have found the leader to route for now. I think a modest red wave could be in the offing and lead to a minority Liberal government. If Harper has a tiny minority, he’s history. The Liberals will get to govern with an accord with the NDP.

  24. Jack D says:

    I was disgusted by Mulcair’s performance tonight.

    He was pompous, dismissive, rude and incredibly acrimonious. His snarky quips against Trudeau were witty at first, until he decided to go full-on asshole and call him stupid in front a 3000 member audience and everyone watching on TV. It was cringe-worthy and despicable to see that sort of resentment manifest itself in such an ugly manner. Despite all of the TV ads, I haven’t even heard Harper go so far as to directly insult Trudeau’s intelligence to his face in the way Mulcair did. His attempts to make fun of Trudeau got some laughs but ate up what precious time he had to pitch his plan. His dig at Bob Rae was so ironic that I almost fell over in complete shock at his lack of self-awareness.

    Everything Tom did or said tonight was tragic. He was supposed to come to this debate and make his case as an agent of change but ended up painting himself and NDP as a party travelling backwards in time. He spent more time on the defensive and looking angry as hell.

  25. e.a.f. says:

    The T.V. shut down so only got to see the clips, but that kid sure had what it takes when he went after Steve on the 2 categories of Canadian citizenship! Not a Liberal voters, but in my books Trudeau made gains with that.

    There are so many Canadian who hold dual citizenship or are citizens by choice. What Harper proposes is very, very scary. it is possible for a family to have 2 generations born in Canada, but due to dual citizenship, find themselves deported. We all ought to remember, some of those Cons did talk about environmentalists being terrorists. There are those of us who of no country but Canada, yet we could be kicked out if Steve decides he doesn’t like our opinions. Steve is the guy who had charities, churches, bird watchers and PEN audited. This is not a man to be trusted. Better a passionate leader than one who hides in the closet.

    • DougM says:

      “it is possible for a family to have 2 generations born in Canada, but due to dual citizenship, find themselves deported.”

      Yeah, if they are charged and convicted of terrorism. That isn’t scary…unless you have plans to be a terrorist I suppose. I’d suggest a different career path in that case.

      “There are those of us who of no country but Canada, yet we could be kicked out if Steve decides he doesn’t like our opinions”

      What!? No, no you can’t.

      • Kelly says:

        DougM inadvertently illustrated by this law will be thrown out by the Supreme Court (a constitutional challenge was just launched in August) and the Harper knows it. The bill clearly leads to variable justice as well as the possibility of being rendered stateless (you could be deported to a country of which you are not yet a citizen merely because you would have the legal right to apply for citizenship because, your parents, say, where citizens of another country. That other country would be unlikely to grant you citizenship as a convicted terrorist.)

        The con position is completely untenable and the law will be thrown out but it’s in effect — and being used with abandon — purely for political purposes…and for that fact alone, the conservatives have no business running the country. They play fast and loose with the constitution and individual rights.

        I for one, don’t want to live in a country where some people are more equal than others. Thank goodness — again — for Pierre Trudeau.

        • Vancouverois says:

          I for one, don’t want to live in a country where some people are more equal than others.

          You are already, and have been since at least 1976. That was when the Parti Québécois enacted Bill 101, which restricts the education rights of children based on their parents’ background. Not when they are found guilty of a crime, but simply because of who they are.

          Thank goodness — again — for Pierre Trudeau.

          It was Pierre Trudeau’s acquiescence that made it possible. He could have disallowed Bill 101; he didn’t. He could have supported a legal challenge to the full law; instead, he added section 59 to the Constitution in support of the idea that equal language rights should not apply in Quebec, because he didn’t want to alienate Quebec separtists and nationalists.

          So if you’re truly against two-tier citizenship enacted to pander to bigots, start there.

        • Cory says:

          Considering how the existing law which allows the revocation of citizenship for those who take up arms and commit treason against Canada, has been around for decades and been found to be constitutional, I imagine this one will as well.

    • MississaugaPeter says:

      Trying to spin the undefendable … that being, convicted terrorists with dual citizenship get to keep their Canadian citizenship, get pensions, get healthcare, get all the great things that Canada gives, while having participated in an effort to bring Canada down.

      Trudeau just donated to the Conservatives the clip of the campaign, and you are praising him? You must be a half-wit like the Liberal amateurs advisors. And when we get four years of CON majority, you will be the first to say let’s give Justin another chance.

      • Scott says:

        You like to throw around that half wit epithet don’t you. I think you’re a half wit. How’s that feel to you. You say you will vote Dipper but you are sounding more like a Con every day.

  26. Brammer says:

    – Mulcair was the most statesmanlike last evening and nailed the others on C-51.
    – “Generous and Reasonable” is becoming the new “Let me be clear”
    – Friggin translation sucked. Female translator was on volume 10 while speakers on 2, male translator was on 2 while speakers were on 10. Was this put together by Dionne’s AV team?
    – Score 1 for JT statement on Harper making Israel a political football, and for “politics of fear”.
    – Moderator was excellent.

    Good debate all around.

  27. Brammer says:

    – and Harper trying to take credit for getting rid of the coal plants in Ontario

    • cgh says:

      No different than the acid rain treaty in the 1980s. Made possible in both cases because of nuclear in Ontario, something most of you lefties oppose.

  28. pod says:

    1-Trudeau
    2_Harper
    3-Mulcair

  29. Harper: I love CSIS, we are in a an economic crisis, let’s fight ISIS
    Mulcair: Why should we fight ISIS, we are in a economic crisis, we stood up against CSIS
    Trudeau: I love my dad

    • Jim Curran says:

      Having also lost my dad on a September 28th, I probably wouldn’t have been as nice as Mr. Trudeau was to Mr. Mulcair had he invoked my dad in the middle of a debate on the anniversary of his death.

      • Domenico says:

        I was dissapointed in Mulcair for bringing up Trudeau senior on the anniversary of this death. You know that all three of them were well aware of the significance of the date.

      • Maps Onburt says:

        Jim, Mulclair didn’t go after Trudeau Senior specifically, he went after the imposition of the war measures act. Trudeau used this as an excuse to make an entirely scripted (and very obviously pre-rehearsed) 2 minute rant on this that was completely off topic and never addressed Mulclair’s point that he felt the NDP took a principled stand (the wrong one in my mind) against it. Anyone without red blinders on could see that. I’m not a Mulclair fan but I think he handled himself very well on that issue and was right to the point in his response. Trudeau probably stirred the hearts of lots of died in the wool Liberals with that defense of his dad but he riled up as many on the other side who remember things like the NEP and using Quebec to beat the ROC into submission. I think Trudeau Senior did the right thing with the War Measures act and applauded him for that. Unfortunately, Junior would have piled scorn on him for doing that (which is ten times worse than anything Harper is even proposing).

    • Tired of it All says:

      That’s a beauty, Cres! I was going add: democracy won, therefore the terrorists lost (their citizenship)…

  30. Mark says:

    Trudeau just made me feel anxious while watching. People who yell and interrupt like that freak me out. Mulcair’s point about defending civil liberties, and comparing Douglas’ rejection of the War Measures Act with the current NDP’s rejection of Bill C-51, seemed like a fair comparison. Trudeau freaking out that this is an unfair attack on PET is ridiculous. Criticizing the suspension of civil liberties by government, and pointing to past actions of the NDP in opposing this, is perfectly fair.

  31. Kaiser Helmets 'n Motorbikes says:

    We did.

    Election 42 is turning out the be the exact opposite of everything we thought we knew about the mystical average voter.

    While we old farts are glued to our old boob tube, parsing every “I have a Dad!” dream speech, voters under the age of 40 are engaged in something more real, more purely democratic. They are taking the measure of their so called leaders using every amazing social media tool at their disposal.

    From uncovering wacky Liberal “911 Truthers” to NDP “What is this Holocaust of which you speak?” idiots, to an assortment of deranged Conservatives, the modern voter is getting to the heart of what really matters in this election; finding candidates that are reasonable sane, reasonably intelligent, and reasonably capable to represent them in the federal parliament.

    I for one find it wonderful.

  32. reader says:

    1. Trudeau
    2. Harper
    3. Mulcair

    Mulcair performed fairly well, just not as good as the other two. And his personal digs at Trudeau seemed more out of place in this debate than in the others. It seems Mulcair is not as good at reading the mood, the tone, and changing to keep up with it. This is something Trudeau seemed particularly good at.

    Harper was expecting to perform well as he survived all the other debates with little or no damage and this topic was his to own. Unlike Mulcair, he was wise enough to keep his disdain for Trudeau to expressions on his face and people who agree with his policies will like his debate performance.

  33. Lance says:

    The part where the moderator asked Trudeau how he’d deal with Putin, and the audience responded immediately by laughing?

    Telling.

  34. Jon Powers says:

    The winner was the translator on CPAC. It seemed she was mocking each leader with a fake falsetto voice. I couldn’t stop laughing. She could make millions as a voice actor for cartoon animals.

  35. billg says:

    3 way tie, again, good night for JT, but the interrupting, man, stop it already.
    Not sure why the NDP is slip sliding away, no big slip ups for Mulcair, cant be the Niqab because the Liberals have much the same stance, but, they are slipping, problem for the Liberals right now is that those votes seem to be going to both them and the Conservatives.
    C-24 will be an issue for the Liberals over the next few weeks though, the CPC is targeting 40% of voters, and, like the Niqab this one resonates with much more then 40%.

    • Vancouverois says:

      cant be the Niqab because the Liberals have much the same stance

      The difference is that Liberal support in Quebec is based on traditional Liberal supporters, who are federalist and support multiculturalism, and therefore approve of the Liberal position. In contrast, the NDP support in Quebec draws almost entirely on Quebec separatists, xenophobes who are considerably put off by the NDP’s niqab stance.

  36. MF says:

    Ok, Harper has the advantage in a foreign policy debate. Sitting leaders usually do. If facts are checked he could be in trouble. For example, he repeated claimed that emissions are down under his watch. But if that is the case who is responsible? The provinces? Was he talking about global emissions?

    I thought Trudeau did well. I wish I could have heard his French arguments. The incomprehensible interpreter took over. But he has to find a simple way of explaining his position on citizenship.

    Mulcair seems to be like a golfer who has lost his swing. He seems caught between following what his coaches are telling him versus just being himself. Was as if he needed to go use the can or would otherwise have preferred to be elsewhere. This campaign is a iron man triathlon and he may be tiring out.

  37. SD says:

    Although I don’t believe that Trudeau will keep to his promises if he becomes the next PM, he was able to deflect Mulcair’s comment about Pierre Trudeau.

    Harper likely held his own with is target audience.

    Tom Mulcair make a mistake in attacking Pierre Trudeau. Never diss someone’s “mother” (father in this case).

    This week, Tom Mulcair will have to perform some “Hail Mary” pass. If Harper gains an extra point or two in the polls, I think that people who want to stop Harper will switch to Trudeau’s Liberals.

  38. Domenico says:

    Regardless of your opinion of the man, It has become clear that all of the prognostication here and elsewhere that somehow Trudeau would not hold his own in debates against Harper and Mulcair were wrong.

    My take away from the evening is that Dickey will clinch the division for the Jays tomorrow night.

  39. Matt says:

    Partisan hat on:

    Harper won hands down. Ran circles around Trudeau and Mulcair.

    Partisan hat off:

    Harper did well, Trudeau did well, Mulcair did less well. Lots of zingers all around, but no knockouts.

  40. chuckercanuck says:

    When an audience openly laughs at you, you haven’t won the debate. That said, Trudeau did well by not looking like a moron. And he did not get trounced by Mulcair for sure. I think he’s proving the ad: just not ready. Which is a big win for him because the hidden message of that ad is: never ready. His big weakness in the debate is that he is extremely rude. He is so scared of having anyone articulate a counter-point that he feels he must drown out all counter-points. That’s part of his China-admiration – that government too likes to drown out dissident opinions.

    Mulcair wasn’t great but he got shots in at Trudeau that should resonate with wobbly lefties: everyone knows that the Liberals will largely adopt a Conservative agenda if they get in charge. The folks that write Trudeau’s lines are not Dippery at all.

    Harper won the debate. First, no one laid a hand on him. Second, on the revoking citizenship, he got in a line that will stick – “was it wrong to revoke Nazi war criminals citizenship?” Justin may not run around in a Nazi outfit like his dad did, but maybe he wishes those Nazi war criminals were still proud Canadians. Third, and most seriously, Harper’s job is to get that extra slice of people needed to make it a majority. Last night, that small slice surely went Harper’s way.

  41. Kelly says:

    It’s clear from reading these posts that the people who watched the debate are assigning winners and losers based on their own current voting intentions. However, hardly anyone in the country watched, so what really matters is the reporting and the soundbites on radio and TV today.

    The clips I’m hearing make Trudeau come across pretty well. My wife, who is an NDP-er and was raised by a union man and former shop steward popped into the room from time to time — effectively getting soundbites — and was really impressed by Trudeau. He is sounding more NDP than the NDP and I think there is now a clear swing of the progressive vote to Trudeau. Just look at all the Liberal signs in Winnipeg Centre — a normally rock solid NDP riding. I think the Liberals will win that one. Unfortunately that outcome would do nothing to get rid of Harper. Liberals should have run their Winnipeg Centre Candidate in St. Boniface where he could have won the seat back. But, as usual, I digress.

  42. Shaun says:

    Mulcair has made the the same mistake that Trudeau did. After looking at the poll numbers, he and his cadre of advisors convinced themselves that the public really, really loved the party and the leader, when in reality those numbers were more of a reflection of a widespread dissatisfaction with the Harper regime and the projection of a lot of optimism onto someone that the voters didn’t really know as a leader. Mulcair might still dig deep and come up with something for the electorate to cling to, but at this point in time, he’s flopping about and he’s in real danger of falling to third. He’s Chow-ing it.

  43. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Warren,

    If the election narrative is I want to give [insert name here] a chance, Thomas Mulcair blew it last night.

  44. KBab says:

    And then there was Harper’s “those people…. um Inuit…” moment. Very revealing. He made himself very clear. The Inuit are them, not us.

  45. Don Wilson says:

    Oh Lord in Heaven: It appears that the forces of Darkness & Evil are going to form at least a minority government. Please use your Divine Powers to convince the Centre-Left parties to collaborate so as to form a united coalition to take over the reigns of power from those who will surely flush this country down the crapper and condemn us all to live in that very hot place where Satan lives Please answer this prayer.

  46. PhilV says:

    As to the debate about losing citizenship if you are a terrorist: On the part of those who argue in favour it is simply a feint to hide their xenophobia about foreigners (pick a target, maybe something to do with Islam, a niqab or some other favourite pet peeve). Now let’s say you were BORN in Canada and you became radicalized (ha ha not necessarily like the picked target above… think of Timothy McVeigh who blew up a Federal building in Oklahoma City for radicalization reasons of his own that had nothing to do with the picked target above). But he was Old Stock…he was born an American citizen. What exactly are you going to strip him of? It was not granted to him, he was so born. So you can’t take it away from him. But if you can’t take it away and now you transport yourself here and we some day get our own McVeigh (God spare us). Oh my! he’s Canadian born (unlike all these other pretenders who got their citizenship in front of a Citizenship Judge, he’s Old Stock) and we can’t take his citizenship away because he would be a citizen of nowhere since he’s go no other… Now now now, does that not point out that all this debate is on a nasty indefensible path? Would the Supreme Court allow a Natural Born Canadian to be stripped of his or her citizenship for a crime that is otherwise punishable by law? Would that not be cruel and unusual punishment? Might the Supreme Court see it as such? Likely. So what is all this blah blah blah about two categories of citizens, ones who can lose it (those who got it through immigration a tad xenophobic don’t you think…like a form of second class citizenship) and ones who can’t (those who were born in Canada: the Old Stock).

    Irrational and indefensible I say.

    • Maps Onburt says:

      So, you see nothing wrong in calling 80+% of Canadians racist because we think that someone who takes an oath of allegiance to Canada and turns around and commits a terrorist act against Canada should lose their citizenship???? I think that is irrational and indefensible.

  47. PhilV says:

    Yes correct to the racist bit. The 80%+ you just made up out of thin air to make yourself feel good and somehow gain redemption from your xenophobia. You don’t give citizenship and take it away at a whim ( …well right now we will take it away for this but later we might take it away for that… once you start that game where do you stop). Enough yada yada. Let’s see what the election brings us. That certainly will cut through the BS.

Leave a Reply

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


*