, 01.04.2023 10:35 AM

I am vindicated

Like I’ve said for months: Anyone who is (a) sane (b) of voting age (c) in Canada doesn’t like either Trudeau or Poilievre.  The federal choices suck.  Worst ever.

From the Globe:

“More than half of Canadians think the Liberals should ditch Justin Trudeau as leader before the next federal election, while 45 per cent think the Conservatives should find an alternative to their new leader, Pierre Poilievre, a Nanos poll for The Globe and Mail shows.

The Canada-wide survey of 1,021 people found that 51 per cent of people want the federal Liberals to replace Mr. Trudeau, while a quarter want him to stay on…

Only 22 per cent of women think Mr. Poilievre, who became party leader in September, should be the face of the Conservatives in the next election, compared with 39 per cent of men.

The poll, which has a margin of error of 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20, found that Mr. Poilievre has far more support in Saskatchewan and Manitoba than in the more populous provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

Forty-seven per cent of respondents in the Prairies think the Conservatives should keep Mr. Poilievre at the helm until an election. But in Ontario, where he is an MP, the proportion who want him to stay drops to 29 per cent. And in Quebec, it’s just 17 per cent.”

 

69 Comments

  1. Warren,

    Let’s just say that a CPC slam-dunk or easy-fix won’t be in the cards for us in the next election. Pierre still has plenty of work left to do, especially in suburbia. No news there.

  2. Gilbert says:

    Obviously Pierre Poilievre needs to emphasize his working class roots, introduce his wife and talk about solutions..

    • Warren says:

      “Working class roots?” He’s never held a fucking job outside of politics.

      • Curious V says:

        Working class roots require some working, usually physical, at least for a summer

      • Gilbert says:

        I understand your point. What I mean is that he didn’t grow up wealthy, didn’t have a trust fund and if I’m not mistaken, worked to pay his university tuition.

      • Gilbert says:

        Pierre Poilievre worked as a paper boy while he was a teenager. He also worked for Telus, and he was a reporter for a Conservative magazine. Before he became an MP, he was an assistant for Stockwell Day. We know he grew up in a modest home. Maybe if he becomes PM, he won’t stay in $6000 a night suites.

        • Martin Dixon says:

          We can only hope. As you can see, that narrative will be extremely difficult to get through over the noise of PMO memos to the MSM. Calling him anti immigrant and homophobic is also going to be a tad problematic given his personal circumstances but I am sure it is still coming because his actual life story is inconvenient.

      • Doug says:

        He isn’t a nepo baby, didn’t attend private school and his suits cost less than $10K. Polievre earned his career in politics.

      • Doug says:

        He isn’t a nepo baby, didn’t attend private school and his suits cost less than $10K. Polievre earned his career in politics

        • Douglas W says:

          Agreed and … he’s got pretty good political chops.

          Not going to be tripping over political landmines like his two immediate predecessors did.

        • Martin Dixon says:

          He would have been fine in the private sector. And don’t underestimate the value of a paper route. That is elite snobbery. That gave him more real world experience than JT and most of his cabinet(who have pretty well reached the pinnacle of any success they ever have had or will have). He had to work his ass off to take down a liberal cabinet minister in his first election.

      • Jeff Whelpton says:

        Yah like being a snow board instructor or bouncer…come on!
        At least he would never wear black face or dance in costumes in India…Should I go on?

        • Martin Dixon says:

          Most of his supporters acknowledge he is unqualified and undeserving of the position. But they don’t care. He is THEIR unqualified and undeserving guy. No different than T supporters. None whatsoever.

  3. The Doctor says:

    The age-old problem of political parties picking leaders and candidates for high office based on the weird-ass internal dynamics of the party (including factional jealousies and ideological nuttery) rather than what would actually appeal to the electorate at large.

    It’s like fucking Groundhog Day, watching it happen. They never fucking learn.

    • Sean says:

      BINGO!

      …and I’m pretty sure that Canada is the only Western democracy that elects leaders / candidates in such an eccentric / obtuse fashion.

      The Brits are much closer to how parliamentary leadership is intended to function…. and the Americans are far more democratic.

      • Martin Dixon says:

        Our system basically elects dictators and currently we have one with the support of only 32 per cent of the electorate. Our only hope when this happens is that the caucus are not a bunch of cultish sheep groupies. Not the current situation. They don’t even have the balls to vote themselves Chong’s powers.

        • Martin,

          Why would they need the Chong thing? After all, every single MP and Senator is thoroughly satisfied with the incumbent. In their eyes, this Prime Minister’s performance actually outshines and outranks that of Jesus…ah, that Liberal WAY!

      • The Doctor says:

        The Americans are just as fucked up, just in a different manner. Their closed primary systems are a disaster. They too often result in the nuttiest, most extreme candidates getting the Republican or Democratic nomination. Then in the general election, moderate centrist voters are presented with candidates who are extremist nutbars.

    • Curious V says:

      The PC’s in Alberta and their federal cousins should never have merged with the extremes of the right. They’re beholden to radicals and lunatics.

  4. Ron Benn says:

    There are more than 50 federal ridings between Lake Ontario and the 407. That is more seats than in Alberta and Saskatchewan combined. The Conservatives hold a mere six of these seats. They need to win at least 20 seats which are currently held by the Liberals to stand even a remote chance of forming a minority. Winning the remaining 4 seats in Alberta (and nil in Saskatchewan) is not enough for the Conservatives to form the government.

    Boasting about winning the overall popular vote for two consecutive elections is a childish effort to distract the grass roots from the Conservative’s recurring failure to capture enough seats. You know, the seats that are required to form a government.

    Which brings me to the key question. What has P2 done/said that will actually attract >40% of the votes in each of these Greater Greater Greater Toronto area ridings? Policies that will resonate not just within, but also beyond the borders of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Policies that the voters believe the Conservatives will put into legislation/regulation? The economy is an important factor, but not the only one. What can the Conservatives say to put at ease the voters who hear the standard dog whistle political messages that regularly emanate from the Liberals and NDP?

    Two elections later, I am still waiting for an answer.

    • Doug says:

      To win Laurentia, the Conservatives need a celebrity leader with a recycled Obama persona grafted on by skilled technocratic puppet masters who demonstrated their skills keeping inept provincial leaders in power, whose only policy is to dole money out to favorite groups, driving other groups to expect free money with the aim of a plurality of electors fearing the end of free money.

    • Douglas W says:

      Double P needs a big idea for the GTA.

      Tough-on-crime and lower taxes garners minimal interest.

      • Ron Benn says:

        I agree DW. The policy suite that resonates in both the rural ridings and the suburban/urban ridings is a small set.

        Gun control resonates in the suburban/urban ridings, but tough on crime doesn’t. Just the opposite in the more rural settings.

        Everyone wants lower taxes, but not the requisite cut in services that would be required to keep the budget under some semblance of control.

        Another election with only minor variants to the standard Conservative platform is unlikely to win a majority of the seats.

        I suspect that the only way that the Conservatives will form the next government will be if the voters’ weariness with Trudeau II becomes the overwhelming sentiment of the nation. I also suspect that the Liberal backroom boys and girls understand this. Let’s not be surprised if the current PM resigns, and a new leader (Chrystia Freeland checks a lot of demographic boxes) is anointed before the next election is called.

        • Ron,

          The thrill is gone for Freeland or so they say. I’m waiting for the I’m not running announcement. An election should be not far behind that.

          • Martin Dixon says:

            Former serious person, Morneau, is trying to rehabilitate himself in interviews and a book. So funny. He lost all credibility when he threw all his views on pension reform right out the window when he got caught up in JT’s cult. Such a shame. I actually thought he had potential.

          • Douglas W says:

            Ronald … spot on, again.

            Why has the thrill gone for Freeland? Is she tired of taking marching orders from the PMO.

            Is it because she no longer can stomach her boss?

            Suspect there will be a by-election called for University—Rosedale this year.

          • Ron Benn says:

            RO’D, I am not suggesting that Chrystia Freeland would be a good PM. I have little respect for her performance in any of her cabinet positions. Notwithstanding the rhetoric of the main stream media at the time, the US ate Canada’s lunch on the rework of NAFTA. She surrendered our sovereignty when she accepted the veto right of the US on any future trade deals that Canada wishes to enter into. Her anemic performance as Finance Minister ranks somewhere near Bill Morneau’s, and that is nothing to boast about.

            What I am suggesting is that the backroom boys and girls (the so called Laurentian elites) are fixated on who might appeal to Canada’s most important voter demographic. Notably the voters in the urban centres with significant seat counts. You know, the same ones that the Liberals essentially swept in each of the last three elections.

          • Douglas,

            Thanks.

            This is a guess but I imagine that a major factor in her decision, if rumour is accurate, is the toxic political environment that has spread from the United States to Canada. That nutbar at the elevator was perhaps symptom enough to get her to say I really don’t need to put up with this shit anymore.

          • Ron,

            I think your argument is an excellent one but if what is going around Ottawa is accurate, Freeland is now intent on getting out of politics, timeline so far unspecified. So, it sort of becomes that familiar analogy/argument about how you can take a horse to water but not make him/her drink. Chrystia supposedly is now a firm believer in the life is too short mentality, so why would she still need this shit that’s ongoing in Ottawa?

  5. Curious V says:

    The conservatives are held ransom by their base. Their base leaks to the people’s party if they aren’t “conservative” enough, so any reasonable alternative loses in the leadership contest – Alberta politics, same thing. The PC’s should never have merged with the reform, and their provincial cousins should have stayed intact rather than merge with the Widlrose – Both parties would be competitive and a natural governing option had they not merged with their more extreme wing – it destroys any chance of electoral victory. Short sighted and a big mistake.

    • Curious V,

      I was against the merger but Harper proved me wrong three times. Then came the Scheer and O’Toole jinx. Poilièvre will have to break that to become the next Harper.

      • Curious V says:

        I don’t think he’ll be the next Harper. Harper was a bit of a fluke. His timing was impeccable, and he benefitted from a strong NDP, and weaker Liberals. There problem is that they can’t please both moderates and radicals with the same talking points.

    • EsterHaztWasALoser says:

      The Progressive Conservatives didn’t have a choice. They were in debt and nobody would lend them any money to continue. The party was going the way of the Liberal Party of the United Kingdom (that is to say, extinct). We can thank Mr Mulroney for what happened to the Progressive Conservatives.

      • EHWAL,

        I think that’s fair. The Schreiber thing really was a body blow to the party. However, if memory serves, Campbell’s initial polling numbers were quite good, just like Michael’s when he first became Liberal leader. I supported both of them.

  6. Arron Banks says:

    Is Mr. Poilievre watching what’s happening south of the border with his counterpart there? How playing with the fire of populist politics has consequences with anti-government people who actually could care less of actually governing sabotaging and biting the supposed hand that feeds? Brings to mind a certain poem titled “The Snake” often quoted (though probably self-referential) by the 45th POTUS

    • Martin Dixon says:

      Counterpart. Hilarious. It was like the lazy comparisons of Harper to Bush cheered on by the MSM. From people who did not understand either their views or how they actually governed. T’s counterpart up here is actually JT. He is the one using the same dog whistling, divide the country politics. Bannon and Butts were/are BFFs. Same tactics.

      • Martin,

        Mind you, Harper (and his good friend Howard) were both gun-ho to go into Iraq in 2003. By 2008, Harper admitted his previous position was a mistake, to say the very least. Chrétien was the shrewd and smart one on Iraq.

        • Who can guess why George W. really went into Iraq? It had very little to do with “WMD”. No, he wanted to get Saddam for trying to off the old man, George HW, in Kuwait in 1993.

          • Martin Dixon says:

            Let’s not break our arms patting ourselves on the back about Iraq. We were on our way until Quebec politics intervened. It’s the old broken clock is right twice a day scenario. And the House was embarrassing when the Liberals gave the decision a standing O while our most important ally was sending soldiers off to die. Disgraceful. Told Jane Stewart at the time. Must look up her response.

          • Martin,

            I never supported that war. Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11-01 nor did he assist the Taliban or anyone else. Mind you, when Saddam swung, you didn’t see me crying but that’s still beside the point.

      • Arron Banks says:

        I was actually referring to Kevin McCarthy (who is the virtual equivalent as the highest ranking member of the conservative contingent) lol.

        • Martin Dixon says:

          Ronald, the point is that Chretien not going in had nothing to do with principle. Politics, pure and simple.

        • Martin Dixon says:

          Arron, again, let’s not pat ourselves on the back. Democracy is working the way it is supposed down there and it will be fine. JT running the country as if he has a majority because of Singh propping him up is somehow better? I beg to differ. Who voted for that?

          Basically what I said when former economic “expert” Paul Krugman(is he still a thing?) predicted the Dow would never recover after T’s election. So funny. I was traveling to Bermuda the day after the election and had a lot of fun listening to and talking to all the snowflakes ready to throw themselves off a cliff after the election. Told them that the country would survive.

  7. Robert White says:

    Conservatives have a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting elected. Poilievre should seek the revolving door option and exit stage left to the corporate sector like John Baird did.

    O’Toole was their only decent candidate IMHO.

    RW

    • Gilbert says:

      I disagree. If Pierre Poilievre can improve his numbers with suburban women, gains seats in Quebec and the NDP start to act like a real party, the Conservatives have a chance.

      • Martin Dixon says:

        I don’t believe the numbers on PP and women. I just don’t. But the glitterati will keep beating it like a drum.

        • Martin,

          We can disbelieve any numbers we want (or believe them) but facts are facts: in this country, at least a plurality of women are either left-of-centre or social-democratic. That’s the Canadian political reality. Period.

        • Douglas W says:

          Martin, totally agree: the numbers on Double P are soft.

          I talk politics all the time with folks on the street, and never does Poilievre come up in conversation.

          I wonder if people know who leads the Conservative party?

          Pollsters are diminishing Poilievre to appease the PMO, who dole out polling contracts.

          • Martin Dixon says:

            Watch the usual suspects turn PP into a Jordan Peterson groupie just because he is sympathetic to free speech-the horror. I have some strong opinions and never hesitate to voice them with my own name-one can only wonder who will be in the barrel next.

            “First they came for the Communists
            And I did not speak out
            Because I was not a Communist
            Then they came for the Socialists
            And I did not speak out
            Because I was not a Socialist
            Then they came for the trade unionists
            And I did not speak out
            Because I was not a trade unionist
            Then they came for the Jews
            And I did not speak out
            Because I was not a Jew
            Then they came for me
            And there was no one left
            To speak out for me”

          • Douglas,

            Got to disagree, respectfully. So many of the firms have earned their high rating and reputation for integrity. They’re not about to blow that for the Trudeau Liberals or anyone else. My argument with them is on small polling numbers size, and on methodology very rarely.

          • Martin Dixon says:

            On the polling firms(can’t reply directly to Ronald), I think there is a woke impact on the numbers. To many it is not woke to support PP so the pollsters are not getting accurate results. It is not nefarious(in most cases).

      • Gilbert,

        Agreed but Pierre has to make sure that all the stars align right in our universe. A tall order but Harper did it repeatedly. So it’s far from being impossible, Robert notwithstanding.

      • Ron Benn says:

        Gilbert, your string of IFs leads to a very small number. For the sake of simplicity, IF the probability of each of the three events you cite is 50%, then the probability of the Conservatives winning an election (winning as in most seats) is .5*.5*.5=12.5%. Higher than the 649 odds, but still not inspiring.

    • Eve-Marie Chamot says:

      Actually he has an excellent chance of forming a strong minority government with BQ support as did Harper after his first election in 2006. An increasing number of voters across the spectrum are very angry at Trudeau (and at Singh for supporting him) since they are realizing that he is a classic narcissistic sociopath with a very toxic reptilian personality and totally unsuited to being a prime minister and these are “ABT” voters (“Anyone But Trudeau”) with a very strong motivation to get out and vote anti-Trudeau. Pro-Liberal voters are also turned off by Trudeau so they tend to have much less motivation to get out and vote so if you take into account actual voting participation rates then Poilievre is “sitting pretty” but he needs to find a way to actually force an election. Those public-opinion polls typically sample ~3 respondents per riding of ~100,000 people and they do not focus only on active voters who actually voted in the last election plus it seems that the Liberals are now bribing the polling firms to skew their polls in their favor. The best poll right now is the “money poll” with the Conservatives collecting more in donations since Sep/21 than all the other parties combined and that also includes Quebec. Poilievre delivered quite a “shocker” in his leadership campaign in 2021 and won by a “landslide” even in Quebec and he might deliver another “shocker” in the next general election. He’s doing all the right things such as campaigning very effectively online via YouTube videos in his own personal “video channel” with daily campaign releases and he’s very “street active” while Trudeau and Singh hide amap and fume and sputter about their inability to present themselves well via online video which makes T look like a wooden ventriloquist’s dummy and S look like a hysterical raving twit. However P needs to bide his time and wait until T once again steps into yet another political cesspit of his own making:- he’s got a talent for doing that. He has badly alienated many Atlantic rural and northern Liberal and NDP MPs with his total ban on hunting firearms so don’t be surprised if some of those Atlantic and northern MPs decide to form a new “Atlantic Party” or “Northern Party” respectively and the ground under Justin Trudeau suddenly shifts and pitches him into a new general election which he can’t win.

      • Martin Dixon says:

        Good analysis. Looks like we have at least one female supporter.

      • Eve-Marie,

        I wonder how many diehard Liberals will actually sit the next one out. If they do, à la Ignatieff, then Trudeau is likely gone. I’m not for forcing an election unless and until the government alternative has costed and presented all its anti-QE and inflation policies. Once that’s in the can, our chances of winning against Trudeau increase exponentially.

  8. Andy Kaut says:

    Wait, how can this be important at all? We don’t vote leader in Canada, we vote party. This means the only way this info has importance is if we poll which party these folks vote for also.

    I.e. if 100% of liberal voters think pierre is no good, it’s about as important or relevant as 100% of conservative voters th8nking trudeau is a bum.

    This entire study and resultant commentary are a fart in a stiff breeze if we don’t know which voters hold these beliefs and how entrenched they are in their party lines. You’ll note that the remainder of people who can stand either leader are still enough to form a government based on recent events.

    Tell me how many of those are even swing voters and we’d have a more relevant picture.

    • Martin Dixon says:

      Right. The majority of us can only really work for our local people and get them elected. I tell people all the time on the left and right to get the heck out from behind their keyboards and actually do something. Donate, canvas, raise money, volunteer, etc. Most won’t.

  9. Warren,

    If Churchill could lose and Trump win, that pretty much says it all about the theoretical uncertainty of election outcomes. Quite literally, almost anything is possible.

  10. Robert Bernier says:

    He is no nepo baby but Poliver is the swampiest of all swamp creatures.

  11. Warren,

    Canadians aren’t looking for a prom date. They are starving for government competence, ethics and an inflation elimination plan. This Prime Minister caused and created this mess. Just ask anyone who is intimately acquainted with a cash register. He needs to pay the ultimate political price in the next election.

Leave a Reply to Ron Benn Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.