09.17.2015 08:55 PM

Who won and why?

Open thread. I will have my take in tomorrow’s KCCCC!

37 Comments

  1. Alex says:

    I have a feeling that this debate will have zero impact on the election. The Globe did such a terrible job — the format was AWFUL — I suspect that the only people who watched this mess in full were professional journalists, and political junkies like me. For normal Canadians, however, they probably tuned out pretty early. This is proof of why print journalists should not do television debates.

  2. Matt says:

    Toss up between Harper and Mulcair, although Mulcair refused to put a cost to his cap and trade.

    Trudeau was not good at all. Shouting.

    But the real loser is the viewer because of the moderator. Just friggin horrible.

    • Danny says:

      Agree, close between Harper & Mulcair.
      I did notice that Harper never seemed to interrupt, and Mulcair did only a few times. Trudeau did it constantly. Are we looking for a lead heckler or a PM?
      Full disclosure, I went in a Conservative voter. Half way through my wife came in, who is not political, and said she couldn’t stand listening to Trudeau. I thought it was just me. And then my son came in and asked who I was voting for. I said probably Harper, cause the other two were idiots. And then I quickly took that back. I said the guy on the left is an idiot, the guy in the middle I just totally disagree with his policies. So Mulcair won me over tonight. And I have a whole different opinion now on what & how a minority parliament might look like.

    • Danny says:

      On further thought about what I saw tonight.
      Everyone is assuming a minority government after the next election wil result in a Liberal / NDP deal. I think I saw a different possibility tonight.

      http://t.co/grK9TXiddb

  3. Student501 says:

    Mulcair sounded calm and collected. I don’t agree with some of the more significant proposals that he’s putting out, but he did sound good nonetheless. So of the 3, he scores the number 1 position.

    I am having serious trouble with Mr. Harper’s position which is intensely resource based and favors a minority of Canadians (private and corporate). Sorry, but if Mr. Harper was the CFO of a corporation he would be shown the door which what came out tonight. Same media lines over and over, the facts are we have a 75 cent dollar and many citizens of Alberta are without jobs.

    Sorry, Donald Trump would be firing Mr.Harper tonight.

    Mr. Trudeau was basically repeating his media lines, not very conducive to responding to specific questions, the plan sounds interesting it’s just not being conveyed convincingly. So he’s runner up, and gets the set of steak knives.

    As was once said in Glengarry Glen Ross:

    “Blake: You certainly don’t pal, ’cause the good news is – you’re fired. The bad news is – you’ve got, all of you’ve got just one week to regain your jobs starting with tonight. Starting with tonight’s sit. Oh? Have I got your attention now? Good. “Cause we’re adding a little something to this month’s sales contest. As you all know first prize is a Cadillac El Dorado. Anyone wanna see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you’re fired. Get the picture? You laughing now? You got leads. Mitch and Murray paid good money, get their names to sell them, you can’t close the leads youre given you can’t close shit. You ARE shit. Hit the bricks, pal, and beat it ’cause you are going OUT.”

  4. Cranston Snord says:

    Who was the winner? The average Canadian who tuned into the Blue Jays win and eschewed this goat rodeo masquerading as a debate, that’s who. This had to have been the most poorly moderated debate I’ve ever witnessed. That said, PMSH was the only one who didn’t look and act like a first grader. Gawd, that was painful.

  5. Christian Giles says:

    The Jays won! Because of a solid offense and some decent pitching. Oh! You mean the debate? Well I watched a bit and what I saw was a gong show in which some kid was breathlessly shouting while another was angerly rejecting questions put to him while the third bearded guy kinda seemed reasonable. There was a fourth guy who I think was supposed to be in control but was pretty well useless. Go Jays!

  6. Geoff says:

    Don’t worry, Print will be dead before the next election. This made me want to cancel my subscription.

  7. Brent Crofts says:

    I agree with Matt. Harper and Mulcair were both very solid. Harper by a hair I think. Trudeau seemed really erratic and off his game. And yes, the moderation was extremely subpar.

  8. Leslieville Bill says:

    The Jays because they scored more runs. Was there a debate on? 😉

  9. KBab says:

    It was a close shave
    but Mulcair by a whisker

  10. davie says:

    Winner? University of Calgary were up 45 -7 on U of Alberta at half time, and cruised to tvictory.

    (Globe and Mail had a programme on their election agenda on another channel)

  11. Jason says:

    Not sure how typically progressive, left-leaning voters could have watched that “debate” and felt Mulcair best advocated their innate values, their Dipper DNA, vs Trudeau. Yes, he was aggressive – even shrill, alas – but he surely came off as the more passionate, progressive, and anti-Harper of the two options; with the desire for change in the air, he seemed to be offering much more of it, in both substance AND style.

  12. bazie says:

    mulcair> harper>>>>trudeau

    trudeau was just awful at debating imo. Shouting, rushing through canned lines, interrupting a lot, and a really high platitude to policy quotient.

  13. MississaugaPeter says:

    No winner. No loser. No one actually watched. It took me forever to find it on Channel 11. Was constantly wanting a commercial break. Was hoping it would end 45 minutes in.

    Maybe the French debate will have a winner/loser.

    What a big difference from the CNN Republican debate on Wednesday. 11 candidates. 3 hours was not too long. Didn’t agree with many parts, but much more interesting. Respectful.

  14. Ridiculosity says:

    Bullshit. Trudeau won – easily.

    Confident. Passionate. Inspiring. Consistent. Aggressive. Strong. Authoritative.

    That’s what a leader is made of.

    And Canadians know it.

    • Scott says:

      I agree and so did Bob Fife. Trudeau spoke over them at times because he was still making a point or the others were misrepresenting what he said. He took no shit. Mulcair comes across like a condescending twit.

  15. Michael Bluth says:

    Mulcair controlled his anger. Trudeau didn’t.

    Both are trying to tap into the rage Harper induces.

    Is the ballot question: How angry are you at Harper?

  16. Bill MacLeod says:

    I don’t know; maybe Mulcair, maybe Harper.

    All I can say for sure is that Trudeau really, really, annoyed me tonight.

    I guess I’ll give it to Mulcair, for stating the obvious to Trudeau: When your handlers tell you contradictory things, pick one. You cannot use them both. That was just one of the many things that annoyed me about Trudeau. Another was the constant emphasis that Canada is “still in deficit.”

    Some of the telling moments occurred when Mulcair would try but fail to stifle a smile when Harper gored Trudeau, as would Harper when Mulcair nailed Trudeau.

    It seemed they both were deliberately trying to make Trudeau look like a grade-school debater — and one on the playground at that. If they were, they succeeded.

  17. Maps Onburt says:

    Canadian’s lost… that was the absolute worst performance I’ve ever seen. Trudeau was by far the worst but Mulclair and Harper weren’t far behind. Why they heck didn’t they shut off the other’s microphones? Listening to the three of them drone on made me want to punch the screen. This was a total failure and they should all be sent to the dog house. All this has shown is that they all viscerally hate each other and watching them shake hands after the debate made me want to puke. The moderator was the worst since that fat CNN chick did the US election. AWFUL. At the end of this, I think people will want to send them all to the penalty box and Trudeau should have to wear a dunce cap. Same lines, over and over. He just reinforced the line that he can’t think on his feet. AWFUL. I hated this and couldn’t wait for it to be over.

  18. cassandra says:

    Ms Lizzie May for her stellar responses in short bursts of brilliance. She showed smarts, saavy and dedication without posturing, without bs and without screaming!
    Even when the big boys try to keep her out of the room, she still managed to connect with canadians, thanks to twitter.

  19. Liam Young says:

    Mainstream media. Corporate Canada.
    Canadians did not and will not win Oct 19.

  20. Jim Curran says:

    I don’ t know about anyone else but Harper makes me wanna scream all the time. His inability to ever tell the truth is annoying. Mulcair stood there like he was stunned. If that’s winning, I guess then he won. Nobody watched this debate at all. But thats what the Cons wanted anyway.

  21. BlueGritr says:

    Last night’s debate was Trudeau’s for the taking. So is the upcoming election. Trudeau couldn’t deliver last night: too many rehearsed lines; looked terrible every time he talked over TM + SH. JT reaffirms the notion that he’s not ready for the biggest job of his life: running the country. He’s likable. Great energy. But has terrible advisors. 85 seats for the Liberals on October 19th will be a very good night for the party.

  22. Tim Gallagher says:

    WK, last night you gave the debate to TM by a whisker over PMSH. The old stock quote that reverberated afterwards likely made TM’s win larger.

  23. Lance says:

    Nobody WON.

    Trudeau “lost” because he didn’t win. Harper “won” because he didn’t lose. Mulcair won overall because he lost the least.

    It is amazing that a guy that has been in there for 10 years isn’t getting his ass kicked to kingdom come.

  24. Joe says:

    Didn’t watch the debate. Didn’t need to watch the debate. I know their positions going in so what would be the point. I don’t believe in socialism because of its dismal track record where ever it has been tried. I don’t believe Jr has a clue about economics and his idea of 3 consecutive 10 billion dollar deficits confirms it. For all his warts Harper has led Canada through two world wide economic downturns with minimal harm done to Canada.

    • Ted H says:

      Minimal harm, is that the best Harper could do? What if we had a government that helped Canada thrive through downturns, Harper basically did nothing, Canada did it all due to it’s basic economic fundamentals, but Harper want’s credit. As for JT’s experience, well Harper had no experience when he first became PM, there is a minister of finance to deal with fiscal policy and the Liberal Party has some people with serious financial experience, who unlike Harper have actually worked in that field. Harper is like the servant in the bible who when given a talent hid it in the field so it wouldn’t get lost then gave it back to his master, who wasn’t happy because the other servants who were given talents invested them and brought back a return. We need more than minimal harm, we need a government that actually does something and moves Canada forward, and that’s obviously not a Conservative government.

  25. ralphonso says:

    All three won as each achieved their goals:

    Harper effectively defended his record and poke enough holes in the other two to make people worried.

    Mulcair came off as the most Prime Ministerial, he defended his party’s positions well and highlighted Trudeau’s policy flips.

    Trudeau came off as the most passionate and didn’t flop.

  26. Domenico says:

    I thought Mulcair was the strongest. I thought Trudeau was strong, but stuck too closely to his talking points. However, he came across as the most passionate.

    Harper looked flustered at times particularly at the end, which I found surprising.

    In terms of content it has become clear that Trudeau’s infrastructure plan is a winner, Harper is doubling down on supply side economics and the resource sector. I came away with no better understanding of Mulcair’s plan.

  27. Shaun says:

    Nobody won, nobody lost. It’s very hard to think that anyone’s really going to remember this debate at all. Opinions of the candidates’ performances seem to be based almost entirely on the opinions of commentators going in, which I suppose is normally the case. Everybody reinforced both their positives and negatives.

    Mulcair came across as the most polished, easily. Safe, well-rehearsed, kind of boring, which is consistent with the type of change he’s selling. The occasional glimpses of Angry Tom were kind of fun. If he’s not careful, I think that his many comments on deficit spending this election will come back to haunt him by the time of the next campaign. His comments are more about political calculation than principle, and Liberals are aware of how well that worked out with C-51. He’s playing not to lose, and it shows. Watching Tom, it’s hard to not think about how much better Jack would probably be doing at selling the party’s movement toward the political centre.

    Trudeau was running hot and fixing for a fight. You could feel the adrenaline. It didn’t serve him well when he talked too fast and came across as too excited, but he did come across as if he genuinely cares and he wants to grow the economy in a hurry. If you wanted to see a candidate who is passionate about the direction of the country, you got it. If you wanted to see an unpolished, under-prepared candidate (an opinion that I heavily suspect we will see repeated on this site later today), you got that. The downside of the Not Ready campaign being so effective is that, at some point, the public will perceive that he is ready. Whether that’s during this campaign (unlikely), or down the road, he’s going to see his standing bolstered when it happens.

    Harper came across as a guy who didn’t really see what all the fuss was about. He’s sticking to his guns, speaking with the confidence of someone who is totally convinced that his government’s gotten it right, and presenting very little in the way of new ideas. If you’ve done well the past few years and you’re happy with both how you and the country are doing, he is your guy on the economy. He tries to take credit for his successes and blame other factors for his failures, like any incumbent would. Plain, old-stock vanilla, sure, but let’s not forget that lots of people like plain vanilla.

    The audience was the real loser. The questions were setups for talking points, and Walmsley really made no attempt to dig. Harper’s refusal to do the English consortium debate, and this woeful substitute, will probably be the most memorable aspect of last night’s debate.

  28. Mary says:

    Here’s the Globe & Mail top story this morning:

    ANALYSIS
    Trudeau emerges as leader with new economic vision for Canada
    DAVID PARKINSON – ECONOMICS REPORTER

    Huh? So what do I know.

Leave a Reply

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


*