, 09.08.2022 12:06 PM

My latest: should he stay or should he go?

Okay, you’re Justin Trudeau.  Just pretend you are.

We know, we know: you’d rather not.  If we’re all playing dress-up games – one of Justin Trudeau’s favourite pastimes, as is well-known – you’d rather play the role of someone else.  Someone less unpopular, say.

Because, God knows, Justin Pierre James Trudeau, PC, MP, twenty-third Prime Minister of All of Canada, is pretty damn unpopular.  Even that friendliest of friendly Ottawa opinion-sampler firms, Abacus, says so.

Said Abacus, a few days back: “Public feelings about Prime Minister Trudeau had been deteriorating through our surveying over the Summer…The Prime Minister’s negatives still stand at 50 per cent – the second highest negative reading we’ve seen during his time in politics.”

The reasons are myriad and multiple, because – in politics – it’s never just one thing that kills you.  It’s an accumulation of things, over a long period of time.  Big political graves are dug with tiny shovels, this writer always likes to say.

In Trudeau’s case, there’s no shortage of things about which to dislike.  There’s the WE scandal, and the Aga Khan one.  There’s his obstruction of justice in the LavScam thing – which would’ve gotten him impeached, had we been like the Americans.

There was the egregiously racist blackface incidents – incidents, plural, because Trudeau did it so many times, even he wasn’t sure how many.  There’s was the groping of the reporter at the beer festival in BC, which constitutes sexual assault, as defined in no less than the Criminal Code of Canada.

Any of those – obstruction of justice, blackface, groping – were disqualifying.  Had Justin Trudeau been a garden-variety aspiring Liberal candidate, had he been a regular person, those things would’ve prevented him from being “green lit” to be an actual candidate.

But he isn’t a regular person.  He’s a Trudeau, a millionaire, and a charter member of the lucky sperm club.  He breathes a different, rarefied air.  He orbits in a different stratosphere than the rest of us mere mortals do.

But we mere mortals want him gone for the most politically-fatal wound of all: we’re sick of his face.  We’re tired of him, even those of us who voted for him before.  We want him gone.

Few Liberals know where he hangs out, these days.  Fewer still are consulted by him.  If you’re a Liberal MP, you’ll be lucky to be granted a minutes-long audience with him once every year.

So, as Justin Trudeau lingers somewhere, pondering what to do – pondering whether to stay or to go, per the Clash – there are pros and cons.

The cons: Trudeau could lose the next election.  The Conservatives are about to give Pierre Poilievre 110 per cent of the vote.  Poilievre could get a bit of bump.  The fresh face and all that.  Stranger things have happened.

Another con: there’s no issue to manipulate, there’s no pretext, to justify an early election call.  Trudeau used Covid in 2021, and it very nearly blew up in his face.  What could he use this time?

This con, too: the polls – including the aforementioned Abacus – continue to show Trudeau’s Liberals and the Conservatives where they have been for years: tied.  If an election was held now, the Grits would win – but it’d be another minority.  No change.

But there are pros, too, associated with staying and fighting. Chief among them is Pierre Poilievre himself.  The Ottawa-area MP is hard to like.  And his Bitcoin fetish – and his WEF conspiracy theories, and his links to far-Right convoy types, and the civil war he’s fostered within his own party – are big, big liabilities.  For the Liberal war room, it’d be a target-rich environment.

Another pro: the Tories are again – again! – underestimating Trudeau. After being beaten by him three elections in a row, you’d think they’d learn.  But, once again, they have underestimated Trudeau’s main strength: his ability to fight.  He loves a good fight.  And he rarely loses.

Pros, cons.  Negatives, positives.  As he sits somewhere, eyeballing his phone, alternating between poll numbers and pictures of Himself on Instagram, Justin Trudeau isn’t letting on what he’ll do.  Stay and fight? Shrug and leave?

So: if you were Justin Trudeau, what would you do?

101 Comments

  1. Martin Dixon says:

    So he has said he is staying. Honestly, what other choice does he have? He is not qualified to do anything else.

  2. Douglas W says:

    Sensing a late-October vote, with the Dauphin at the helm.

    Liberal’s election narrative:

    Us guys (Liberals): moderate, fair, caring. Have the people’s best interest. Protect the status quo.

    Conservatives: Right-wing crazies; will steal from widows and orphans.

    Libs will retain power if they can control this narrative.

    They’ll get thumped once things go off the rails.

    • Douglas,

      I would reverse this: things are already off the rails but WILL they get thumped? Now listen to the clock: crickets.

      After all, Byrne remains every Liberal’s best friend. They simply can’t get enough of her on PP’s campaign. They’re L-U-V-I-N-G it!

      • Meanwhile, thank God the fucking race is over tomorrow. And yes, that’s the best I can say about it.

      • Douglas W says:

        Sir Ronald,

        You have far more insight on Byrne than I do.
        All I know is Double P had about 80 events that went off without a hitch.
        About 90,000-plus people attended in total.

        His handlers must have done a few things right.
        Perhaps, they were treating the events as a dry run for the upcoming vote.

        Compared to Scheer + EOT, Double P’s team appears to be far more buttoned down.
        My advice to them, start promoting key MPs, who will comprise the core of team Poilievre.
        Show that they’re ready to govern.

        • Douglas,

          I have absolutely no time for Byrne. She does precisely the opposite personally and offers the same politically to her boss: they went out of their way to label rivals, especially the main ones, as enemies, infiltrators and RHINO Conservatives. That isn’t big tent to me. Byrne needs anger management treatment, and it shows in spades. What’s her fucking problem? Just so glad that I’m not part of such a foolish campaign.

  3. Warren,

    Most of us know people rather well who are excessively prideful and offended when they are not given their due. They look at you with anger on their faces and leave you wondering if they happen to be a charter member of the narcissist club? Those types dig their own grave is magnificent solitary fashion.

    Watch this Prime Minister going forward to see how he reacts to his political situation : if like above, he’s already de facto gone. If not, he’s putting on his boxing gloves again and definitely fighting it out, come what may.

  4. Gilbert says:

    If I were Justin Trudeau, I’d try acting. Let’s be honest. He’s a pretty good actor. Hollywood?

  5. I’m kind of surprised that there hasn’t been an avalanche of comments here from both pro and anti-monarchists, given the level of respect HMTQ almost universally enjoyed.

    What’s it like over at the cesspool?

  6. PJH says:

    I’d stay……if only to see PP have to resign on election night while his zealots wail, rent their garments, and gnash their teeth….

    Sadly, the biggest losers in all this will be the Nation….

  7. Phil in London says:

    He’s staying arrogance like his can’t see ANY reason he can’t win again – and he just might

    • Phil,

      Couple arrogance with ego and pride and I can see how he might view things. But still, running against Poilièvre looks easy and almost already in the bag. If by a miracle Pierre pulls this off, he’ll be the new David who politically took down Goliath. IF. I will say one thing for him given his lack of personal positives in polls, the man has got guts in spades.

  8. Sean says:

    1. Justin never had a reason for running in the first place, so it is impossible to imagine what reason would make him leave.

    2. Is Chrystia Freeland pulling a Paul Martin by dropping the NATO story? Answer: No one fucking cares.

  9. Derek Pearce says:

    Freeland must not have a very strong organization within the party because if she did he’d be shown there’s a door wide open for him. Maybe her plan is to let him lose to a PP minority and let PP quickly become despised, and she’ll swoop in with a majority after. You never know.

  10. RKJ says:

    Agree he is having too much fun – protected by a bought and paid for media his risks are lower than other PM’s. As well, the past three conservative leaders (including Harper) had profound weaknesses which allowed Justin to play to his strengths – fake caring etc.

    I expect he’ll see how far he can milk the Queen’s passing – go to London for funeral, cry some tears, work the media spotlight etc. and see how his polls react. If he thinks PP can be successfully boxed in with some “knuckle dragging wacko Conservative” narrative there’s no reason not go – I expect he craves a majority. Then, he can successfully run Canada over a cliff.

  11. Peter Williams says:

    Justin will campaign on abortion.

    • The Doctor says:

      I just don’t think that would have the legs that it has in the US. Abortion is very much protected at a fundamental level in Canada because of the 1988 Morgentaler Supreme Court decision.

      And the anti-abortion movement in Canada is not nearly as strong as in the US. For a number of reasons, not least because we’re less religiously observant.

      I know, that won’t stop Liberals from lying their faces off about it. But I think there’s only so much political hay you can make out of a substantive nothingburger like that.

      • joe long says:

        Trudeau will play the abortion card, and the compliant media will repeat it.

        I”m thinking the Liberal war room has already collected a bunch of tweets from right wingers wanting to end or restrict abortion.

        • I’m with Doc. They don’t need to. They already regard PP as a political write-off whose chances of winning are the same as those of any male who hopes to become pregnant. Call it Liberal conventional wisdom and right now, it’s dead on. Only Pierre can change that. Not Byrne, not anyone else. It’s a very remote possibility, but could happen if Poilièvre plays his cards right during the campaign. But like I said, only Pierre personally can save his campaign from a humiliating defeat which is now already baked into the cake.

          • The Doctor says:

            I guess another related point is, the kind of people who are stupid enough to think that abortion is actually under any kind of real, credible legal threat in Canada are probably the kind of people who are already in the bag for the Liberals and/or the NDP.

            For those of us who actually have some grounding in the law and political reality it’s irritating as hell to hear this same stupid “debate” dragged out every election cycle (sort of like the movie Groundhog Day but devoid of any charm, wit or humour). But I guess that’s a price we have to pay for living in Canada.

  12. Ron Benn says:

    To stay or go is not a decision that is PM JT’s to make.

    He was anointed leader by a small set of backroom boys and girls based on their correct assessment that their Liberal Party could form a government with JT as the lead actor. The same set of back roomers have crafted the story boards and instructed their minions to write the screenplays for this 7+ year slapstick melodrama. They have coached him on how not to go off script. And so it will be that same set of backroom boys and girls that, when they and they alone determine that the Liberal Party will not form the next government with JT as the lead actor, direct him to exit stage left, out of the limelight.

    I respectfully suggest that the back roomers at the Conservative Party pay attention to the process that cast JT as the leader of the Liberal Party and eventually PM for 7+ years. Too late for this, round three of the Off Off Off Broadway amateur act that passes for leadership campaigns. Perhaps in advance of round four, which should appear on your screens well before the middle of the current decade.

  13. Martin Dixon says:

    The Toronto Daily Star(sic) have now run two consecutive basically hysterical articles by Salutin and Hepburn. Badges of honour IMO. That bunch is running scared.

    • Douglas W says:

      The Star, playing to the extreme fringe.

      Salutin and Hepburn, in need of pay cheques, know what to write.

      Now, more than ever, people are keeping their thoughts to themselves.
      This messes up accurate polling; all the while, Libs and New Democrats, wondering how firm their support really is.

      • Martin Dixon says:

        Right and I have never had that problem. More hysterics from former conservative Andrew Coyne:

        “And so, rather than use the leadership race as an opportunity to showcase itself as a government in waiting, reaching out to voters who, though discontented with the government, had until now hesitated to mark their ballots for the Conservatives, it has gone all in for the crackpot vote: pro-convoy, anti-vaccines, fearful that the World Economic Forum is plotting to put microchips in our brains.”

        Touting the echo chamber view. All he had to do was read what Ibbitson(also not a PP fan) in the NEWS section of the Globe:

        “In terms of policies, there is not that much daylight between Mr. Poilievre and, say, Ontario Premier Doug Ford. Both support high levels of immigration and defend sexual and gender minorities and a woman’s right to choose.

        A Poilievre government would lower taxes, rein in spending and reduce the deficit, all classic Conservative priorities.

        But Mr. Poilievre would differ from any previous Conservative leader in the depth of his disenchantment with the people and institutions that govern Canada.

        “The one thing that sets him apart is that he is fundamentally more skeptical than other politicians are about the institutions of our country,’ said Peter Loewen, director of the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. “He clearly has the view that the public administrative state in Canada is underperforming. That’s a hard view to contest, actually.”

        Mr. Poilievre maintains that the actions of the Bank of Canada are in part to blame for inflation. He would fire its governor.

        He believes municipal governments have created a housing shortage through regulations and development charges. He would use the federal spending power to force them to lift restrictions.

        He believes that print and broadcast media are biased against conservatives; he would cut their federal funding.

        That universities pander to the woke; he would force freespeech policies on them.

        That federal regulations impede growth and prosperity; he would cut the red tape. That carbon taxes and restrictions on development punish consumers and the oil-and-gas industry; he would end them.

        For anyone who wonders what Mr. Poilievre means when he talks about firing the gatekeepers, this is what he means.”

        That is why the MSM is so hysterical about him. Those positions scare the hell out of them.

        And back to the nonsensical Income Tax Act and how it can get “regular people” in a mess:

        https://financialpost.com/personal-finance/taxes/cra-servers-electronic-tips

      • Douglas,

        All I can say, to use my favourite Harperism, is when that last happened in Quebec, we got a Jack-wave in Ottawa and a Legault-wave in Quebec.

        • Martin Dixon says:

          This under polling is going to be more similar to 2016 in the US. One isn’t allowed to say one supports PP in polite mixed company so his supporters aren’t IMO.

          • Martin,

            No, I don’t rule that possibility out either, but it’s not likely in my estimation.

          • The Doctor says:

            A potential problem with the under-polling comparison to the US is that our systems are completely different in terms of who has the structural and geographic advantage. I agree that a phenomenon of Trumpism has been that previously low-participation voters (particularly low income and less educated) were turned into high-participation voters, and this was related to the enthusiasm that Trump was able to generate in many of those voters.

            But the US system gives advantages to rural (and predominantly less educated) areas, in the form of the Senate (e.g., Wyoming getting the same number of Senators as New York) and the Electoral College. Canada is almost the reverse — so for example the total Tory dominance of places like Alberta doesn’t benefit the Tories very much in terms of the overall seat count. The Liberal vote has for decades now been much more efficiently distributed. I’m not convinced at this point that any enthusiasm factor would necessarily overcome that disadvantage. But I concede it’s early days and it will be interesting to see PP versus JT polling matchups.

            My bias, but it just seems to me that PP and the Tories are shooting themselves in the foot right out of the gate with what appears to be yet another CPC small-tent approach.

        • Douglas W says:

          Ronald,

          Curious, to know where the CAQ vote will play out on the federal stage in Quebec.

          Will CAQ voters migrate to the federal Conservatives?
          The BQ?

          Unlikely, to the federal Liberals.

          • Douglas,

            I will start with this: imagine if the CAQ and PCQ get sixty percent in the provincial election. It’s distinctly possible, in my view. So how does that split federally? Well, most of the PCQ will vote CPC, but the CAQ will split for sure: didn’t Legault endorse us last time? And that didn’t go monolith as he likely expected. My personal opinion and it’s a guess at best is 6 out of 10 will go BQ and 4 for the CPC.

  14. Warren,

    Wow. Hum. The Liberals are really pushing Domenic Leblanc forward, surprise, surprise, first at the Ascension Ceremony and now smack right in the middle of the CPC convention. Interesting.

  15. Um. And exactly when are we going to get the results? Kinda putting the cart before the horse, you think?

    • Are these the numbers?

      Poilievre captured 68.15 per cent of the available points in the contest; his closest competitor was former Quebec premier and Progressive Conservative leader Jean Charest at 16 per cent.

      • Jesus Christ. If these numbers are accurate — I knew it was going to be bad for my side — Team Charest, but never in my wildest dreams did I think it would be this bad.

        • Martin Dixon says:

          I knew it would be-see all my previous posts. Not surprised in the slightest. Our local MP was one of the Charest backers and we were at 66% PP. Didn’t move the needle much. One of the silly networks in the US said he was like Ted Cruz. So funny.

        • Douglas W says:

          Double P: impressive ground game.

          Team Justin will be matched up against a more formidable foe, come the next federal vote.

          Folks want change.
          The economy is tanking.

          • Douglas,

            Clearly the next election will be decided by people like me who weren’t for PP. Those voters will decide and right now IF Poilièvre runs a campaign like Harper did in 2006, we have a semi-decent shot at it. But if he goes rogue right à la PPC, we’re definitely done as dinner.

  16. Martin Dixon says:

    Wow. PP’s immigrant wife amazing. Who knew-actually the MSM likely did. It will just be a little more difficult to hide now. His dad gay too. There goes the homophobe and anti immigrant arguments.

  17. Martin Dixon says:

    Ok Ronald. Admit it, those were two great speeches.

    • Martin,

      She has infinitely more crossover appeal than he does. How ironic is that? He would do well to find her a winnable riding. She’s a natural for politics already with the makings of a star, not to mention tringual at that.

    • His speech was good and gracious but not exceptional coming from a guy who’s won six or seven elections. In short, he did the bare minimum of what was expected. He wasn’t angry which is very good but the proof will be in the pudding. If he convinces Charest to run as part of his team that will be beyond huge and he’ll be on the right path from the get-go. We need unity to win and requires most of us who were not for him sticking it out. Can he do it? It’s 50-50 right now. And finally, is Byrne smart enough and capable enough to lead on his behalf in the mending of fences? We’ll see soon enough.

      • Martin Dixon says:

        Ronald, charity begins at home. There are various “levels” of sticking with him and you are not at the top level. That is within your control.

        • Martin,

          Fair enough. I’m no one in particular in the party but I’m from the show me state. The more he improves, the more big-tent he becomes, the more he can count on my support and probably a third of the party. But Ron, never, ever, gives unconditional support to any leader as both Harper and Trudeau inevitably found out. Not looking for an OLO or PMO job or even GIC appointments so PP already knows that.

          • PP also knows that I have red lines in politics that a leader must not cross: Harper trending too far right for my comfort and of course, with HimselfTM it was SNC. I was gone in both instances. And to borrow your phrase, THAT is uniquely within the leader’s control.

            If PP wants my advice he can have it but it will never be sugar-coated or necessarily what he hopes or wants to hear. And it will come privately. And if he doesn’t, I’m perfectly fine with that. After all, it’ll just be my third leader in a row and I won’t lose any sleep over it, rest assured. You might call this plain-speaking à la PP.

  18. Well, we took a thumping. No doubt about it. But I’m not going anywhere. Remember that the Trudeau Liberals went after my family and I intend to make them pay royally politically (only) for that. Trudeau can take that one to the bank. As the old saying goes: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Simple as that, but I don’t plan on having much to say about Poilièvre going forward.

  19. As for Kory, is he a political genius or was he fed a good idea of what the numbers were before going on TV? Looks like quite a few people were in the know before the fact.

  20. Scot says:

    Personally, I think he’s great. So do the vast majority of my friends. The so called scandals are faux scandals hyped by Trudeau haters. He will run again and kick PP’s ass.
    These polls showing 50% disapproval have many dippers who will vote for him anyway to stop PP.

    • Come on, Scot. Geez, aren’t most of your friends Trudeau Toadies? I guess the Ethics Commissioner must already be in the PP bag. Right. You go with that, by all means.

      Yeah, HimselfTM is like Trump, you know, with all those faux scandals. Why don’t you scream fake news while you’re at it?

      Translation: a plurality of Canadians are sick of Trudeau’s face, period. That’s why we led for three weeks in the last vote until stupid O’Toole blew us out of the water on truckers and vaccines. Hopefully, Poilièvre is smarter than that.

      • Scot says:

        You’ve been desperate for years now Ronald. It must be getting tiresome. Your guy is now a right wing ahole who’s in bed with white supremacists. Nice party you’ve got there. Lol

        • Scot,

          To quote a Liberal leader I always despised: Just watch me!

          Write us off from the get-go. By all means, please do. LOL. One of us will get the last and best laugh.

          • But I’ll be busy, as I have a Prime Minister to defeat. Already took him down two pegs in the last two votes but trust me, I can do MUCH better this time. I’m so much more motivated this time.

        • Scot,

          To quote a Liberal leader I always despised: Just watch me!

          Write us off from the get-go. By all means, please do. LOL. One of us will get the last and best laugh. Who do you think it will be?

          • But I’ll be busy, as I have a Prime Minister to defeat (another one). Already took him down a couple of pegs in the last two votes, but trust me, I can do MUCH better this time. I’m so much more motivated this time! Keep the faith.

  21. And I’ve got news for Kory, people like parties that hold the leadership accountable after a losing election. A dud needs to be turfed when he or she, by their own conduct, denied us power in an election we were about to win. If PP is the greatest thing in the next campaign since sliced cheese, he’ll deserve another chance even if he loses, unless it’s a Liberal blowout. We need the Chong thing as backup. If we junk it, even the worst leader in our party’s history would be able to hold on and that boys and girls is NEVER acceptable. I want the power to remain with caucus, just like in the UK. They turfed the BOJO jackass and now won’t have any trouble in winning the next election. Ditto happened when they dumped Mrs. Dry in favour of Mr. Wet (Major). THEY WON AGAIN.

    • And no one had a bigger laugh than Truss. She was incredibly plugged in with caucus, knew which way this thing was almost inevitably going and voted to keep him, knowing full well that he was about to go down. And then she outfoxed the BOJO BOZOS by massively getting their votes. Did that make her cry or want to return the leadership to Boris Bozo? I don’t think so. She makes Harper look like a rank amateur when it comes to being a tactician. But I digress.

  22. Remember that experienced and unchallenged leaders can blow us all the way to political hell. That’s precisely what Harper did in 2015, and no one stopped him from doing that because they were all scared shitless of him, cowering in fear as the ship sunk below their feet. Harper to his credit took sole responsibility and quit. He went down honorably and worthy of respect. That’s what real leaders do.

  23. Martin Dixon says:

    Random thought. You have to wonder if the there was actual Liberal interference in Ottawa Centre and University Rosedale as some thought Butts might do, taking a page from the Dems interference in Republican primaries.

    • Martin,

      I’m not familiar with this. Can you please clue me in generally speaking? Thanks.

      • Martin Dixon says:

        I am sure you are aware that the Dems spent a pile of money supporting Trump supporters in the primaries. They figured they would have a better chance against them in the general. Reasonably disgusting. I read somewhere up that the Liberals were trying to pull the same stuff up here. Join as Tories and swing the vote. Those two ridings are an odd result. Although, just for the record, the last guy I would want as PM would be someone chosen by the residents of Ottawa Centre and University Rosedale. No offence to Charest. Although to expand on the tin hat theory a bit further, maybe they were scared of PP.

    • Scot says:

      The Dems took their lessons from Republicans. The scammers and fraudsters are mainly on the right side of the spectrum. Here and in the States.

  24. Gilbert says:

    I thought Pierre Poilievre was very wise when he thanked Jean Charest for his efforts to defend Canada and keep the country united. The Conservatives are much stronger with Jean Charest on their side.

  25. Gilbert,

    Charest says he’s going back to the private sector. Is that his final decision?

  26. Gilbert,

    Of course, the other thing is will most of the Charest and Brown people do what I just did? You know, immediately unify under our new leader for the sake of this great country. I sincerely hope so.

  27. Martin Dixon says:

    More on polling. From the David Leonhardt and the NYT daily newsletter this morning.

    “The final polls in the 2020 presidential election overstated Joe Biden’s strength, especially in a handful of states.

    The polls reported that Biden had a small lead in North Carolina, but he lost the state to Donald Trump. The polls also showed Biden running comfortably ahead in Wisconsin, yet he won it by less than a percentage point. In Ohio, the polls pointed to a tight race; instead, Trump won it easily.

    In each of these states — and some others — pollsters failed to reach a representative sample of voters. One factor seems to be that Republican voters are more skeptical of mainstream institutions and are less willing to respond to a survey. If that’s true, polls will often understate Republican support, until pollsters figure out how to fix the problem. (I explained the problem in more depth in a 2020 article.)

    This possibility offers reason to wonder whether Democrats are really doing as well in the midterm elections as the conventional wisdom holds. Recent polls suggest that Democrats are favored to keep control of the Senate narrowly, while losing control of the House, also narrowly.

    But the Democrats’ strength in the Senate campaign depends partly on their strength in some of the same states where polls exaggerated Democratic support two years ago, including the three that I mentioned above: North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.“

    • The Doctor says:

      Democrats are swimming against a massive historical tide in the midterms in any event. So even if they lose both houses, the predictable Republican/Trumpist crowing about any such result would be ill-informed (but of course they’ll do so anyway).

      I believe I heard in a podcast over the weekend that the sitting President’s party has lost the midterms in 36 of the last 40 midterm elections. 90% chance of losing, historically speaking. Regardless of the facts or the actual state of the nation.

      As for your comments on polling, I agree with your fourth paragraph, the precise explanation I heard was that a lot of Trumpy Republicans are downright hostile to polling organizations, so there’s even a resistance to pick up or offer a response in the first place. Part of the problem there is that many polling organizations in the US are, or are perceived to be, part of the Evil MSM (e.g., ABC News-Wapo, NYT-Sienna College etc.).

      However, another factor is the low-frequency/high-frequency voter thing. Historically, more educated people were more likely to vote, less educated people were less likely to vote. And this was baked into polling methodologies and sampling. But something has happened in the Trump era which seems to have energized voters with no college education in the US, who are a key pro-Trump voting bloc. They are showing up to the polls with a lot of enthusiasm. And that’s blowing up polling to some extent.

      • Martin Dixon says:

        You aren’t going to be able to find the young voters that PP seems to be attracting either and ask them their preference either. How will anyone find them.

    • Martin,

      Thank you for this. In a word, fascinating.

      And so much for that tried and through truism that he or she who wins Ohio, wins the presidency. Now that’s a real shocker.

  28. Martin Dixon says:

    “Despite the carefully crafted strategy that delivered Pierre Poilievre a resounding victory in the federal Conservative leadership race, campaign insiders say they were caught off guard during the six-month campaign by the thousands of young people who flocked to take out memberships and support Poilievre.”

    Not by me. All you had to do was watch his rallies. Thinking most readers of this site didn’t because their prejudices are already baked in. Lots of good stuff in here including the fact that many of the supporters are not angry Tories. They are disappointed liberals.

    https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/wave-of-young-voters-flocking-to-poilievre-surprised-even-campaign-insiders

    • Robert White says:

      Populism may be an effective marketing tool in the USA, but in Canada it’ll backfire and Poilievre won’t be able to deal with the left media criticism of his partisan followers who are greasing the slippery slope he’s about to slide down as a politician.

      The Conservative Party is a one hit wonder of Steven Harper’s making and it’ll likely never have another successful leadership given that the mood has changed qualitatively vis-a-vis conservativism in a left leaning world. Right wing populism is not going to attract educated left Canadians. It will attract the uneducated deplorable bent on right-winged fundamentalist rhetoric as always.

      Alberta does not have a game plan in Canadian politics. They throw mud at the wall and hope it sticks
      as a strategy.

      Hope is not a strategy.

      Poilievre?

      meh…

      RW

  29. Poilièvre first big test will be the opposition critics: female to male parity? Equal regional representation? The Lincoln effect: how many of his opponents will make the cut?

    And then we get to the fun stuff: critic freedom of expression versus a top-down OLO control model that decides everything and speaks on everything exclusively. You know, like Harper did. Where’s Pierre on all of that?

    • Robert White says:

      His victory lap on stage holding his infant son are very endearing. He’s likely getting high ratings scores as he
      holds his infant son smiling for the cameras.

      I have to say that he does look pretty stellar as a politician holding his son in his arms and smiling for the media spotlight.

      Poilievre knows how to play the cameras and media I’ll give his handlers that much.

      RW

      • Martin Dixon says:

        That is who he was at his rallies. I know it is a surprise to many in the media but that is because they weren’t paying attention, or more likely were but did not report it.

  30. Martin Dixon says:

    More predictable hysterics from The Toronto Daily Star today. This time from Martin Regg Cohn. Another guy who doesn’t know what is going on…or actually maybe he does.

  31. Well, positive style almost always trumps positive content. Negative style, to an ever greater degree, trumps negative content. But there’s a price to pay — in some instances it denies you power while in others its effect is only on the margins.

    Canada is becoming a far angrier and more indecent place to live. And those types are voting at least in increasing numbers, if not in droves.

    Poor Canada. What a pathetic country we’re becoming, well on our way to being the junior POS country right behind the United States…and so many morons are just tickled pink about that.

  32. That brings us back to Clark’s devil you know argument. He was wrong about Martin in 2006 but take away Sponsorship and Clark likely would have been right, then.

    But in 2022 Canada, it’s anyone’s guess.

  33. The more shit-faces vote, the more scum get elected. Just look in Congress on both sides of the aisle. They’re too numerous to mention here.

    And they are, at minimum, national embarrassments and a discredit to their country. God help us if we end up with losers like that here in Parliament.

Leave a Reply to Ronald James O'Dowd Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.