Kory Teneycke is not shy pointing out the stunning reversal in electoral fortunes, but what would he actually do differently?
With Poilievre as party leader and a very very weak bench behind it, what are the options that Conservatives have? Poilievre is not going to be likeable after 20 years of being a dick. His resume is never going to be comparable to Carney’s resume. The rest of the bench is equally unqualified. None of them are liked outside of their own riding. In my opinion, even with Teneycke managing the campaign, they just don’t have the cards.
Yep 💯. The Cons are helpless as long as the ballot question is Trump vs Canada.
I only know my riding in NS and at least in Central Nova things are looking good.
I love the details that EKOS posts up with their 3/5 day rollup. They weight the replies from unvaxxed because they are generally hard to reach. I know EKOS is “out there” but if you look at the race from THAT end, well, it will be an incredible night.
Considering the polling is showing huge leads for the Liberals among women and +55, the more likely case is that to is a polling miss in favour of the Liberals. Women are +55 vote at much higher rates.
I know anecdotes aren’t data, but here in BC I was struck by several women I know, historically inactive politically, who have joined the LPC and held fundraising events precisely because they view Polievre so negatively.
There is a general mood that I’ve been observing that goes beyond the historical grievances that generate Western Alienation. People are recognizing that “something” is wrong, but can’t quite put their finger on it.
I see a growing Populist Right across the Western world (behind the Anglosphere). In this I am referring to Populism, with the perceived/imagined elites and all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism . This is not at all the same thing as something being "popular".
This populist-right has offered answers to this "something", often in the form of nostalgia for the way things were (strict social hierarchies on racialization, hierarchy for binary gender in the combination of cisnormativity and misogyny, heteronormativity, etc) in some idealized (and largely ahistorical) time.
I then notice a complete absence of any response from any other mainstream political perspective (what Canada considers its center-right, center, left, etc).
I see loud performative individualistic “I am good” with an implied or stated “you are therefore bad” from mainstream self-identifying “progressives”, but I see no actual recognition that anything might be wrong – only a claim that this “other” is wrong and the source of any perceived problem.
I disagree with both perspectives, but I blame those who are not on the populist-right for fueling the fires of populism more than I do those who fall prey to the simplicity of the populist-right.
I know there are all these polls that are suggesting one thing. While I am not looking forward to it, I will not be any more surprised when the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre form government in Canada than I was that Donald Trump became President of those United States. I saw so much media attention talking about how Donald Trump didn't have a chance at winning, but the only poll that matters is the ballot. Who actually shows up is what matters.
To clarify again in case anyone wants to get angry at me: I am not speaking about what I want to happen, only what my gut is telling me is actually happening.
Bill Bishop said, "My concern as well. However I think electoral college in the States pushed Trump over the winning line."
Many Canadians are using parliament as if it were an Electoral College, ignoring the candidates named on their ballots and voting based on believing they are electing the Prime Minister of Canada. A few of the "Canadian leaders" (using that term very loosely) are claiming they are running to be Prime Minister, which to my mind has been "Canadians" wanting to become part of the USA and use a Presidential system for generations.
I am aware the US Senate and Electoral College were designed very specifically to privilege voters in less populous states over the more populous states, but that just means it is easier for the less populous states to bring in "their" populist agenda vs a populist agenda from the more populous states. The overall vulnerability of Democratic Institutions is similar.
I know at the moment that means a "Republican" corporate brand over a "Democrat" corporate brand, but I don't see the corporate cultures of these brands as different on the core issue of Democratic Institutions.
In the Canadian context, I have noticed many similarities between the Reform party (now a block within the Federal Conservative sometimes called “Khmer Blue” which Pierre Poilievre has always been part of as a Reform party advocate) and the NDP.
This is not on the “left-vs-right” stuff that the media likes to report on with their US Presidential style reporting. In my mind the “left-vs-right” hasn’t been a coherent political spectrum since the French Revolution.
It is more about existing within a political silo, believing you are right, and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and/or under the control of some “elite” run cult. They aren’t really interested in trying to work together with a diversity of people to govern, but to have their chosen corporation take control of institutions in order to unilaterally “correct” what they perceive as “wrong”.
While Canada may have more corporate brands (parties) with seats in our legislative branches compared to the USA, none of the parties in either government have been interested in fixing institutions so that the underlying centralization of power is diminished.
Kory Teneycke is not shy pointing out the stunning reversal in electoral fortunes, but what would he actually do differently?
With Poilievre as party leader and a very very weak bench behind it, what are the options that Conservatives have? Poilievre is not going to be likeable after 20 years of being a dick. His resume is never going to be comparable to Carney’s resume. The rest of the bench is equally unqualified. None of them are liked outside of their own riding. In my opinion, even with Teneycke managing the campaign, they just don’t have the cards.
Yep 💯. The Cons are helpless as long as the ballot question is Trump vs Canada.
I only know my riding in NS and at least in Central Nova things are looking good.
I love the details that EKOS posts up with their 3/5 day rollup. They weight the replies from unvaxxed because they are generally hard to reach. I know EKOS is “out there” but if you look at the race from THAT end, well, it will be an incredible night.
Gotta GOTV!
Have you seen the ad they have put out with Andrew Scheer playing a guy in a bar? It is not likely to garner the women's vote.
I haven’t seen it. Is he drinking milk? 😂
lol I know, right?
Don’t Text Your Ex
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlehWcGrl9w
And the CBC one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsKhtsOnZ1Y
Considering the polling is showing huge leads for the Liberals among women and +55, the more likely case is that to is a polling miss in favour of the Liberals. Women are +55 vote at much higher rates.
I know anecdotes aren’t data, but here in BC I was struck by several women I know, historically inactive politically, who have joined the LPC and held fundraising events precisely because they view Polievre so negatively.
Antedotes are data, just a much smaller data set than polls, still data though.
So much trouble that almost nobody showed up for their rally in Windsor, Ontario last night. 😬 🇨🇦 🗳️
Wasn’t that the rally where they yelled “Carney sucks”?
Winning the hearts and minds of Canadians one insult at the time.
No. They were chanting “Let’s go Markey” 😳 The audio feed wasn’t good.
Scheer’s ad will swing things.
Meth! Meth!
Biggest problem the Cons have-Pollievre. He is a dud candidate.
An Only Fans train? Really? Jesus.
(Edited to correct AF typo)
I’m so bloody tired of criticism wrapped in shaming women’s sexuality.
Air Force Train?
Training veterans?
Only Fans Training? (AF is typo for OF? A reference to Lily Phillips? A calling out of Scrimshaw for making that ugly reference?)
I am also not sure what this is a reference to.
May I ask - what is an AF train? First time I see that expression. 🤷
Kinsella. Don’t make me laugh / gag a little vomit into my mouth .
Big question is whether the debates will affect public opinion of the leaders. Or have the majority made up their minds already?
I am reading these with great interest, and what I see as "optimism" gives me some hope.
But my gut tells me that something new is being entirely missed.
Have you watched the Miniseries "Adolescence" yet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescence_(TV_series)
There is a general mood that I’ve been observing that goes beyond the historical grievances that generate Western Alienation. People are recognizing that “something” is wrong, but can’t quite put their finger on it.
I see a growing Populist Right across the Western world (behind the Anglosphere). In this I am referring to Populism, with the perceived/imagined elites and all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism . This is not at all the same thing as something being "popular".
This populist-right has offered answers to this "something", often in the form of nostalgia for the way things were (strict social hierarchies on racialization, hierarchy for binary gender in the combination of cisnormativity and misogyny, heteronormativity, etc) in some idealized (and largely ahistorical) time.
I then notice a complete absence of any response from any other mainstream political perspective (what Canada considers its center-right, center, left, etc).
I see loud performative individualistic “I am good” with an implied or stated “you are therefore bad” from mainstream self-identifying “progressives”, but I see no actual recognition that anything might be wrong – only a claim that this “other” is wrong and the source of any perceived problem.
I disagree with both perspectives, but I blame those who are not on the populist-right for fueling the fires of populism more than I do those who fall prey to the simplicity of the populist-right.
I know there are all these polls that are suggesting one thing. While I am not looking forward to it, I will not be any more surprised when the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre form government in Canada than I was that Donald Trump became President of those United States. I saw so much media attention talking about how Donald Trump didn't have a chance at winning, but the only poll that matters is the ballot. Who actually shows up is what matters.
To clarify again in case anyone wants to get angry at me: I am not speaking about what I want to happen, only what my gut is telling me is actually happening.
And for some “Humour” from a few years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lcYP_zOOXg
My concern as well. However I think electoral college in the States pushed Trump over the winning line.
Bill Bishop said, "My concern as well. However I think electoral college in the States pushed Trump over the winning line."
Many Canadians are using parliament as if it were an Electoral College, ignoring the candidates named on their ballots and voting based on believing they are electing the Prime Minister of Canada. A few of the "Canadian leaders" (using that term very loosely) are claiming they are running to be Prime Minister, which to my mind has been "Canadians" wanting to become part of the USA and use a Presidential system for generations.
I am aware the US Senate and Electoral College were designed very specifically to privilege voters in less populous states over the more populous states, but that just means it is easier for the less populous states to bring in "their" populist agenda vs a populist agenda from the more populous states. The overall vulnerability of Democratic Institutions is similar.
I know at the moment that means a "Republican" corporate brand over a "Democrat" corporate brand, but I don't see the corporate cultures of these brands as different on the core issue of Democratic Institutions.
In the Canadian context, I have noticed many similarities between the Reform party (now a block within the Federal Conservative sometimes called “Khmer Blue” which Pierre Poilievre has always been part of as a Reform party advocate) and the NDP.
This is not on the “left-vs-right” stuff that the media likes to report on with their US Presidential style reporting. In my mind the “left-vs-right” hasn’t been a coherent political spectrum since the French Revolution.
It is more about existing within a political silo, believing you are right, and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and/or under the control of some “elite” run cult. They aren’t really interested in trying to work together with a diversity of people to govern, but to have their chosen corporation take control of institutions in order to unilaterally “correct” what they perceive as “wrong”.
While Canada may have more corporate brands (parties) with seats in our legislative branches compared to the USA, none of the parties in either government have been interested in fixing institutions so that the underlying centralization of power is diminished.
https://r.flora.ca/p/lets-work-to-fix-parliamentary-flaws
It’s called “The Curse of Politics “, for obvious reasons to those actually watch the show.
Do you?
Zero. Zero trouble.
Where is your model actually posted, please and thanks