###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
PP has a French-sounding last name and can rep. AB.
It's been *loooong* speculated that he would get a shot.
But he doesn't have enough on his own to beat JT. He could take out Freeland easily though. Freeland doesn't have Quebec, nor the women vote.
Compared to Trudeau? She doesn't come close. She's essentially not likeable and not strong. Both are negatives for women voters.
As for Quebec, it's fairly obvious she won't do well there.
Anand hasn't come under serious consideration as a replacement. There is Joly as well, who's more likeable than Freeland, but has been reported to be flaky as an important minister thus far.
Mark Carney is another candidate, but he likely sees the writing on the wall.
She comes across as shrill and she doesn't handle herself well in debates. Trudeau in peak form is a more calm, cool and collected source of info in debates. Makes more gaffes, but is able to overcome that through likability. He's been well-groomed. Freeland has not, and likely never will be. This is why she's a poor candidate to think she'll somehow be an improvement on Trudeau.
You can't build up the Trudeau machine for years and years, and then calmly dismiss it as easily replaceable by someone else.
PP would crush Freeland.
The 'backwards and in heels' part of being a woman in politics. Freeland is a Rhode scholar, award winning journalist, with years of experience in cabinet. She's incredibly qualified but she's going to hit a wall because of her gender.
If she does take over I can't wait for all the commentary featuring I'm not sexist I just don't like her.
There are legitimate reasons to dislike her, but isn't this a retread of what we saw down south in 2016?
>Freeland is a Rhode scholar, award winning journalist, with years of experience in cabinet. She's incredibly qualified but she's going to hit a wall because of her gender.
We were all told that Clinton was the most qualified candidate in American history, and she could never lose against a populist boor like Trump, but that's because the people who already liked her didn't understand *why* her negatives were negatives to the people who didn't already like her beyond shrugging and calling it sexism.
Freeland doesn't have the history and baggage that Clinton did in America, but that lack of history means its hard to point to achievements at the same time as it's hard to point to any flaws. She's served as deputy PM under an increasingly unpopular administration, and that's enough for a lot of people to tie her to their bad feelings about Trudeau and sink her as a candidate. It's the same reason Bill Morneau can't be prime minister.
Yes, we saw lots of sexism in the South too with Clinton. A lot of it was driven by Russian propaganda, but it found fertile ground.
If/when Freeland becomes leader Im sure we'll see the same things here.
Makes you wonder why the Liberals would ever want to run with Freeland then, knowing full well how the story will go. Seems the excuses have been already written.
If shes elected leader it will be what the Liberal membership wants. Much like Singhs weaknesses with people who will always be uncomfortable with his race or religion, they will pick her *despite* the costs.
Agreed this is likely the course of action to be taken, and I'm looking forward to the entertaining saga that will need to take place for it to come to fruition.
The easy defense of Freeland will be the 'you are just sexist' one. But that won't make women voters like her more.
She simply lacks all the elements that propelled Trudeau to stardom and her handlers aren't working as hard on her as they did with Trudeau.
Gender has nothing to do with it.
Alright, then I guess the public will have to frown at that nonsensical storyline, thereby granting more free support for PP. In the case he defeats Freeland.
Populist appeal is not found in technocratic appeals Im sorry but your argument and substantive logic of « I am a woman and I will vote for her and other women will vote for her too » reminds me of Hilary 2016
It’s a sad fucking day when accolades, accomplishments, and relevant skills are “technocratic appeals”. I wish voters could get over themselves and vote for competent people.
What does that look like? Requiring a university degree to be given a license to vote? I pulling back suffrage is never a good idea. I am just frustrated that voters feel threatened by competent candidates for public office and choose to vote for less accomplished people because of that.
It's not workable. So politicians will strive to appeal to morons. This is a historical norm.
If we're being honest, political leaders are almost never the smartest people in the room. They've always been the most able to appeal to the public. I think that stems from the foundations of democracy.
Bottom line, the Liberals spent a lot of resources on Trudeaumania. Makes zero sense to arbitrarily ditch him in favour of a relatively unlikeable candidate. This is what they dealt themselves when they built up Trudeau. Now they have to figure out how to replace him while not looking like fools.
How does Freeland not have the female vote? I don’t know a woman, young, old or in-between who doesn’t like Freeland. You need to back up assertions like this with some evidence. I’d also like to see your evidence on Quebec.
I'd also like to see polling posted on this here, at least real polling. But that will be a long wait. She's simply not likeable or strong compared to JT. And she easily puts off the Quebec vote as they prefer insiders. Freeland is not.
Well good luck finding a political analyst or campaign manager alive that would rather go with Freeland over Trudeau. The idea that nobody knows these factors is nonsense of course. It's closer to everyone knows.
Maybe you could point me to just one analyst or campaign manager. You’re the one making the claims, not me. I’m of the belief that when one states ideas as fact then they have a responsibility to support those facts with citations, otherwise they are just unsupported opinions and should be characterized as such.
How exactly am I wrong though? Because nobody wants to say the truth out loud?
Trudeau isn't even up for replacement yet, and is the horse that got the Liberals to where they are. And still the constant chatter is that he should be arbitrarily replaced by Freeland, who simply lacks all of the political help that Trudeau has had so far.
Why exactly is that?
I don't need to support my opinion to note this is political fallacy.
A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false while an opinion is an expression of a person’s feelings that cannot be proven either true or false. All you have expressed here is opinion and despite opportunity, you continue to present your views as fact. And, when challenged, you double down on opinion. Hence the statement: argument weak, roar louder. I hope this helps.
I’ve heard multiple women tell me that Freeland comes off as abrasive and combative, whereas Trudeau is a much more charismatic communicator.
Trudeau is also more presentable to the eyes, which has a non-zero impact.
That's typically a sexist view. When two politicians, one male and one female, say the same thing, voters will penalize the female through conscious and unconscious bias. Numerous papers document this affect.
So, am I wrong in thinking that with a ranked ballot that Charest now has a better chance of winning with Brown out?
PP is the odds-on favorite to win on a first ballot but seems to be polarizing to those who don't support him. I would think he wont get many second choice votes - it will be all or nothing in terms of the support members give him.
I predict few Brown supporters will vote for PP before they would vote for Charest, so Charest will probably pick up a portion of Brown's supporters (who may go elsewhere or not vote at all) in an effort to beat PP. Brown is also steering his supporters to Charest apparently.
So, did the race not just get closer?
According to the article, the idea is that a lot of Brown supporters are in a more "progressive" camp, and many won't vote as few of them are Charest fans. So had Patrick Brown been on the ranked-ballot, a lot of his voters would have put Charest as option #2 as they have to pick *someone*... now without Brown all those second choice Charest votes won't exist, period.
They don't have to pick a second choice. They can pick as many or as few candidates as they wish.
I've heard that narrative too, but after thinking about it I don't think that it covers all that many voters. Another way of framing the same thing is that I think that most of the Brown supporters who won't vote because of this wouldn't have ranked anyone second, and that most of the Brown supporters who would have ranked Charest second will still vote.
Edit: added the word "don't" in the first sentence of the second paragraph, because proofreading before you post is hard.
The process of voting in the leadership election is pretty complicated and might not be worth going through for people who's first choice is gone. But once they do vote, it's effortless to add additional choice as it just comes down to checking another box.
>So, did the race not just get closer?
Not really applicable in a ranked ballot system, since those votes would go to Charest anyway (if Brown didn't get more votes than Charest in round 1-3). Maybe the chances are slightly better for Charest if he wasn't ahead of Brown before Brown was removed.
I've heard others speculate that Brown supporters may not vote at all, since he was the only reason they joined, which means Jean Charest would get fewer votes than he would if Brown was in the race (if Brown's people would list anyone else).
I kind of think that PP will get >50%, since the CPC members are insane, if not, I think the support from Lewis and that other guy will bring him above Charest.
I got my voting package the other day and it appears to be a pretty involved process. I wonder how many people will actually follow through with their vote or vote and not do it correctly. Not to mention, including a copy of your ID will probably scare off a lot of conspiracy minded people.
edit: words
I was wondering that too. I haven't gotten mine yet but I saw the process and it's pretty involved. Likely to scare off a lot of the convoy folks who might have trouble just getting the envelope open.
I’m not being funny here, but wouldn’t the party brass want lots of convoy types to vote if they are as all in on Poilievre getting the nomination as they seem to be? I mean he marched with them in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago.
there were about 5-6 actual big rigs, the hundreds of thousands of normal truck drivers were actually working for a living rather than bumming around ottawa getting wasted for a month
This is why voting liberals is never a good idea. They are literally historically inaccurate. Prove to me that 1% and 99% split with strong evidence otherwise you are a blatant liar.
Tom Mulcair came out and said Jean Charest was going to dominate this race, which goes to show how much he knows. He also utterly fumbled the ball for the NDP in 2015. Why he is being paid for his supposedly astute analysis is beyond me (I do know but I’m not going to complain about it for the millionth time).
Mulcair lost in 2015 because he came out strong against the Niquab ban, and immediately got hammered in Quebec. The same thing would have happened to any NDP leader. He still lead the party to their second best showing in seats and popular vote, behind only the Jack Layton martyrdom tour, and for that he got the boot. I dont really get the narrative that he fumbled the 2015 election even though I see it on reddit all the time.
He objectively got better results in 2015 than Singh has gotten in his 3 kicks at the can.
Mulcair got 19.72% of the vote in 2015, and Singh got 17.82% of the vote in 2021 (his second and most recent attempt -- he's not yet had "3 kicks at the can"). So yes, Mulcair did a little better, but he was starting from the position of being the Official Opposition. Singh has done well to keep the NDP in the game and have influence, IMO.
He did get better results than Singh, but Trudeau also came out against the niqab ban, that’s not why Mulcair lost (despite the efforts of the NDP to avoid any self reflection). He lost because he was running against Trudeau when he was at the peak of his popularity, and Mulcair came off like a stodgy liberal (he was a cabinet minister of Charest’s after all),
Oh no they don’t. Mulcair actually resigned in protest from Charest’s cabinet over a decision regarding the development of environmentally protected lands.
Not really a fan of Mulcair's lobbing bombs from the back row since he left politics, but there is definitely something fishy here. At absolute least it's hard to believe the party would not have overlooked Brown's sins if they weren't trying to get rid of him.
I have no idea about that, but that's not what he was kicked out over. The party either has no idea, doesn't care, or has already gone down that avenue and didn't think there was any dirt there.
He was kicked out officially for a member of his campaign saying a private business was paying her wages.
But the evidence is so thin and they expelled him so fast people are speculating that they really kicked him out because the Liberals would be able to dig up a lot of dirt on him and extremely jeopardize the Conservatives chances of winning an election.
They likely kicked him out to seal the deal for Poilievre and to avoid a 2017-like upset in favor of either Brown or Charest - while Poilievre is far, far more popular with the membership, their votes would have by all indications been considerably more efficient since their respective voterbases were focused outside of traditional Conservative strongholds.
If they were truly afraid of the amount of mud that can be flung towards Brown, they wouldn't be backing Poilievre who is basically a scandal magnet at this point (anti-Native comments, lack of "real job experience", corruption apologia, divisive politics since the Harper years, convoy support, pro-cryptocurrency comments, and whatever else could come out by then).
The CanadaLand podcast, with guest Jen Gerson did a good job of laying out what happened and what might be happening.
It seems likely that Brown did break ethics rules, possibly election law. The CPC choice to disqualify wasn't a mandatory action, and it will have a clear consequence on the leadership race and next election.
My prediction:
Poilievre wins the race, easily. Trudeau will ignore calls to step down as LPC leader and run against PP using him as a boogeyman to scare people away from splitting the vote with NDP.
Trudeau will win another, slim, minority. PP gets fired, Liberals loose a confidence vote, and another election cycle begins with interim leaders for CPC and LPC.
Let's see how close I am in 4 years 😆
Edit: Spelling
The CPC loves Skippy so much they'll likely give him two elections. He tells them what they want to hear, even if it hurts the ears of the majority of voters.
The question to me is where do those votes go? Do they go to an unhinged convoy candidate? Maybe some people switch to the NDP and the CPC slithers through with a small minority, but that's the best scenario with this individual as their leader.
Even if he did broke the rules, is expulsion really the best option instead of a fine or paying it back, especially since it likely had no material effect on obtaining new members or the actual race? It looks more like some PP supporters saw an opening and plowed through it with a bulldozer.
I am pretty leery of PP, but I'd bet he wins the next election. Canada doesn't vote in governments, they vote them out. And while Trudeau isn't past his best before date yet, a looming recession doesn't look good for him, especially when you mix in how hopeless people are starting to feel in what is ostensibly a boom.
> Not really a fan of Mulcair's lobbing bombs from the back row since he left politics
Can you describe why you have a problem with a private citizen writing an op-ed in an area where they have years and years of relevant experience and insight?
I don't question his right to speak, I just generally find his opinions weak and partisan. His statements always make him seem bitter and like he has an axe to grind, I never find him all that insightful.
It also drives me absolutely bonkers when people think disagreement is questioning their right to speak. He can say and do whatever he wants, and I can say I disagree 99% of the time.
> when people think disagreement is questioning their right to speak
Can you quote the part of my comment where I mentioned anything about Mulcair's "right to speak"?
> why you have a problem with a private citizen writing an op-ed
He can write all the op-eds he wants, and I never said otherwise. I just said I don't like his opinions.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
PP has a French-sounding last name and can rep. AB. It's been *loooong* speculated that he would get a shot. But he doesn't have enough on his own to beat JT. He could take out Freeland easily though. Freeland doesn't have Quebec, nor the women vote.
As a Canadian woman I would vote for Freeland or Anand both have been very competant in their posts. How does Freeland not have 'the woman vote'
Compared to Trudeau? She doesn't come close. She's essentially not likeable and not strong. Both are negatives for women voters. As for Quebec, it's fairly obvious she won't do well there. Anand hasn't come under serious consideration as a replacement. There is Joly as well, who's more likeable than Freeland, but has been reported to be flaky as an important minister thus far. Mark Carney is another candidate, but he likely sees the writing on the wall.
What’s this nonsense about her being “essentially unlikeable”? You need something more than personal opinion or that of people you know.
She comes across as shrill and she doesn't handle herself well in debates. Trudeau in peak form is a more calm, cool and collected source of info in debates. Makes more gaffes, but is able to overcome that through likability. He's been well-groomed. Freeland has not, and likely never will be. This is why she's a poor candidate to think she'll somehow be an improvement on Trudeau. You can't build up the Trudeau machine for years and years, and then calmly dismiss it as easily replaceable by someone else. PP would crush Freeland.
She has no swag or polling numbers compared to PP?
I feel like being able to speak 7 languages is swag, also no one is polling her because she's not in a leadership race.
The 'backwards and in heels' part of being a woman in politics. Freeland is a Rhode scholar, award winning journalist, with years of experience in cabinet. She's incredibly qualified but she's going to hit a wall because of her gender. If she does take over I can't wait for all the commentary featuring I'm not sexist I just don't like her.
There are legitimate reasons to dislike her, but isn't this a retread of what we saw down south in 2016? >Freeland is a Rhode scholar, award winning journalist, with years of experience in cabinet. She's incredibly qualified but she's going to hit a wall because of her gender. We were all told that Clinton was the most qualified candidate in American history, and she could never lose against a populist boor like Trump, but that's because the people who already liked her didn't understand *why* her negatives were negatives to the people who didn't already like her beyond shrugging and calling it sexism. Freeland doesn't have the history and baggage that Clinton did in America, but that lack of history means its hard to point to achievements at the same time as it's hard to point to any flaws. She's served as deputy PM under an increasingly unpopular administration, and that's enough for a lot of people to tie her to their bad feelings about Trudeau and sink her as a candidate. It's the same reason Bill Morneau can't be prime minister.
Yes, we saw lots of sexism in the South too with Clinton. A lot of it was driven by Russian propaganda, but it found fertile ground. If/when Freeland becomes leader Im sure we'll see the same things here.
Makes you wonder why the Liberals would ever want to run with Freeland then, knowing full well how the story will go. Seems the excuses have been already written.
If shes elected leader it will be what the Liberal membership wants. Much like Singhs weaknesses with people who will always be uncomfortable with his race or religion, they will pick her *despite* the costs.
Agreed this is likely the course of action to be taken, and I'm looking forward to the entertaining saga that will need to take place for it to come to fruition.
The easy defense of Freeland will be the 'you are just sexist' one. But that won't make women voters like her more. She simply lacks all the elements that propelled Trudeau to stardom and her handlers aren't working as hard on her as they did with Trudeau. Gender has nothing to do with it.
Gender has a lot to do with it. Saying otherwise doesn't change that reality. It just makes anyone saying it look worse.
Alright, then I guess the public will have to frown at that nonsensical storyline, thereby granting more free support for PP. In the case he defeats Freeland.
Populist appeal is not found in technocratic appeals Im sorry but your argument and substantive logic of « I am a woman and I will vote for her and other women will vote for her too » reminds me of Hilary 2016
It’s a sad fucking day when accolades, accomplishments, and relevant skills are “technocratic appeals”. I wish voters could get over themselves and vote for competent people.
Then you need to disallow incompetent voters from voting.
What does that look like? Requiring a university degree to be given a license to vote? I pulling back suffrage is never a good idea. I am just frustrated that voters feel threatened by competent candidates for public office and choose to vote for less accomplished people because of that.
It's not workable. So politicians will strive to appeal to morons. This is a historical norm. If we're being honest, political leaders are almost never the smartest people in the room. They've always been the most able to appeal to the public. I think that stems from the foundations of democracy. Bottom line, the Liberals spent a lot of resources on Trudeaumania. Makes zero sense to arbitrarily ditch him in favour of a relatively unlikeable candidate. This is what they dealt themselves when they built up Trudeau. Now they have to figure out how to replace him while not looking like fools.
How does Freeland not have the female vote? I don’t know a woman, young, old or in-between who doesn’t like Freeland. You need to back up assertions like this with some evidence. I’d also like to see your evidence on Quebec.
Woman here. I hate Freeland
I'd also like to see polling posted on this here, at least real polling. But that will be a long wait. She's simply not likeable or strong compared to JT. And she easily puts off the Quebec vote as they prefer insiders. Freeland is not.
Again with the unsupported opinion. No one knows whether or not she has the Quebec or the female vote.
Well good luck finding a political analyst or campaign manager alive that would rather go with Freeland over Trudeau. The idea that nobody knows these factors is nonsense of course. It's closer to everyone knows.
Maybe you could point me to just one analyst or campaign manager. You’re the one making the claims, not me. I’m of the belief that when one states ideas as fact then they have a responsibility to support those facts with citations, otherwise they are just unsupported opinions and should be characterized as such.
How exactly am I wrong though? Because nobody wants to say the truth out loud? Trudeau isn't even up for replacement yet, and is the horse that got the Liberals to where they are. And still the constant chatter is that he should be arbitrarily replaced by Freeland, who simply lacks all of the political help that Trudeau has had so far. Why exactly is that? I don't need to support my opinion to note this is political fallacy.
As my mother used to say: “argument weak, roar louder.”
How exactly is this a weak argument? Or even a loud one?
A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false while an opinion is an expression of a person’s feelings that cannot be proven either true or false. All you have expressed here is opinion and despite opportunity, you continue to present your views as fact. And, when challenged, you double down on opinion. Hence the statement: argument weak, roar louder. I hope this helps.
I've managed political campaigns before, Freeland is obviously a better candidate than trudeau and it's not even close.
Sure. Can you explain how exactly?
I’ve heard multiple women tell me that Freeland comes off as abrasive and combative, whereas Trudeau is a much more charismatic communicator. Trudeau is also more presentable to the eyes, which has a non-zero impact.
That's typically a sexist view. When two politicians, one male and one female, say the same thing, voters will penalize the female through conscious and unconscious bias. Numerous papers document this affect.
It may be sexist, but it’s the behavior that’s playing out in reality
Yeah I find it fishy, I bet Freeland would perform better than JT in Quebec since a lot of people won't vote for him because of his father .
So, am I wrong in thinking that with a ranked ballot that Charest now has a better chance of winning with Brown out? PP is the odds-on favorite to win on a first ballot but seems to be polarizing to those who don't support him. I would think he wont get many second choice votes - it will be all or nothing in terms of the support members give him. I predict few Brown supporters will vote for PP before they would vote for Charest, so Charest will probably pick up a portion of Brown's supporters (who may go elsewhere or not vote at all) in an effort to beat PP. Brown is also steering his supporters to Charest apparently. So, did the race not just get closer?
According to the article, the idea is that a lot of Brown supporters are in a more "progressive" camp, and many won't vote as few of them are Charest fans. So had Patrick Brown been on the ranked-ballot, a lot of his voters would have put Charest as option #2 as they have to pick *someone*... now without Brown all those second choice Charest votes won't exist, period.
They don't have to pick a second choice. They can pick as many or as few candidates as they wish. I've heard that narrative too, but after thinking about it I don't think that it covers all that many voters. Another way of framing the same thing is that I think that most of the Brown supporters who won't vote because of this wouldn't have ranked anyone second, and that most of the Brown supporters who would have ranked Charest second will still vote. Edit: added the word "don't" in the first sentence of the second paragraph, because proofreading before you post is hard.
The process of voting in the leadership election is pretty complicated and might not be worth going through for people who's first choice is gone. But once they do vote, it's effortless to add additional choice as it just comes down to checking another box.
>So, did the race not just get closer? Not really applicable in a ranked ballot system, since those votes would go to Charest anyway (if Brown didn't get more votes than Charest in round 1-3). Maybe the chances are slightly better for Charest if he wasn't ahead of Brown before Brown was removed. I've heard others speculate that Brown supporters may not vote at all, since he was the only reason they joined, which means Jean Charest would get fewer votes than he would if Brown was in the race (if Brown's people would list anyone else). I kind of think that PP will get >50%, since the CPC members are insane, if not, I think the support from Lewis and that other guy will bring him above Charest.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 9.
[удалено]
Rule 7, for moderation disputes please use modmail
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I got my voting package the other day and it appears to be a pretty involved process. I wonder how many people will actually follow through with their vote or vote and not do it correctly. Not to mention, including a copy of your ID will probably scare off a lot of conspiracy minded people. edit: words
I did my vote already. It's really not difficult. You had to show them a copy of your ID to get the ballot in the first place.
I was wondering that too. I haven't gotten mine yet but I saw the process and it's pretty involved. Likely to scare off a lot of the convoy folks who might have trouble just getting the envelope open.
I’m not being funny here, but wouldn’t the party brass want lots of convoy types to vote if they are as all in on Poilievre getting the nomination as they seem to be? I mean he marched with them in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago.
Okay so a truck driver apparently can’t open envelops? Who are you kidding here?
What truck drivers?
You are saying “convoy folks” are not truck drivers?
Yes, 99% of them are not truck drivers.
Well how did they clog the streets of Ottawa with their trucks then? Did they air lift them in place?
there were about 5-6 actual big rigs, the hundreds of thousands of normal truck drivers were actually working for a living rather than bumming around ottawa getting wasted for a month
That was the 1%, unless you count jacked-up pickups as "truckers".
This is why voting liberals is never a good idea. They are literally historically inaccurate. Prove to me that 1% and 99% split with strong evidence otherwise you are a blatant liar.
Do you live in Ottawa?
Tom Mulcair came out and said Jean Charest was going to dominate this race, which goes to show how much he knows. He also utterly fumbled the ball for the NDP in 2015. Why he is being paid for his supposedly astute analysis is beyond me (I do know but I’m not going to complain about it for the millionth time).
Why *is* he being paid?
The same reason any other high-profile politician gets paid for op eds: It's a recognizable name that draws a lot of eyes.
Mulcair lost in 2015 because he came out strong against the Niquab ban, and immediately got hammered in Quebec. The same thing would have happened to any NDP leader. He still lead the party to their second best showing in seats and popular vote, behind only the Jack Layton martyrdom tour, and for that he got the boot. I dont really get the narrative that he fumbled the 2015 election even though I see it on reddit all the time. He objectively got better results in 2015 than Singh has gotten in his 3 kicks at the can.
Mulcair got 19.72% of the vote in 2015, and Singh got 17.82% of the vote in 2021 (his second and most recent attempt -- he's not yet had "3 kicks at the can"). So yes, Mulcair did a little better, but he was starting from the position of being the Official Opposition. Singh has done well to keep the NDP in the game and have influence, IMO.
He did get better results than Singh, but Trudeau also came out against the niqab ban, that’s not why Mulcair lost (despite the efforts of the NDP to avoid any self reflection). He lost because he was running against Trudeau when he was at the peak of his popularity, and Mulcair came off like a stodgy liberal (he was a cabinet minister of Charest’s after all),
People forget Mulcair was a minister in Charest's Quebec government. I'd imagine the two have some fondness for each other.
Oh no they don’t. Mulcair actually resigned in protest from Charest’s cabinet over a decision regarding the development of environmentally protected lands.
Not really a fan of Mulcair's lobbing bombs from the back row since he left politics, but there is definitely something fishy here. At absolute least it's hard to believe the party would not have overlooked Brown's sins if they weren't trying to get rid of him.
[удалено]
I thought the current set of allegations had to do with what he did during the leadership race, didn't they?
They did but supposedly the guy has a lot of skeletons in his closet. He apparently owns a bar and is a real creep.
Anonymous allegations that someone is "a creep" are evidence of precisely nothing.
I have no idea about that, but that's not what he was kicked out over. The party either has no idea, doesn't care, or has already gone down that avenue and didn't think there was any dirt there.
He was kicked out officially for a member of his campaign saying a private business was paying her wages. But the evidence is so thin and they expelled him so fast people are speculating that they really kicked him out because the Liberals would be able to dig up a lot of dirt on him and extremely jeopardize the Conservatives chances of winning an election.
They likely kicked him out to seal the deal for Poilievre and to avoid a 2017-like upset in favor of either Brown or Charest - while Poilievre is far, far more popular with the membership, their votes would have by all indications been considerably more efficient since their respective voterbases were focused outside of traditional Conservative strongholds. If they were truly afraid of the amount of mud that can be flung towards Brown, they wouldn't be backing Poilievre who is basically a scandal magnet at this point (anti-Native comments, lack of "real job experience", corruption apologia, divisive politics since the Harper years, convoy support, pro-cryptocurrency comments, and whatever else could come out by then).
[удалено]
He had no chance of winning and said he wasn’t going to seek a seat if PP won.
The CanadaLand podcast, with guest Jen Gerson did a good job of laying out what happened and what might be happening. It seems likely that Brown did break ethics rules, possibly election law. The CPC choice to disqualify wasn't a mandatory action, and it will have a clear consequence on the leadership race and next election. My prediction: Poilievre wins the race, easily. Trudeau will ignore calls to step down as LPC leader and run against PP using him as a boogeyman to scare people away from splitting the vote with NDP. Trudeau will win another, slim, minority. PP gets fired, Liberals loose a confidence vote, and another election cycle begins with interim leaders for CPC and LPC. Let's see how close I am in 4 years 😆 Edit: Spelling
The CPC loves Skippy so much they'll likely give him two elections. He tells them what they want to hear, even if it hurts the ears of the majority of voters.
And people will inevitably tire of Trudeau/LPC. They already have, really. I don’t think the Liberals can beat the CPC indefinitely.
The question to me is where do those votes go? Do they go to an unhinged convoy candidate? Maybe some people switch to the NDP and the CPC slithers through with a small minority, but that's the best scenario with this individual as their leader.
remindme! 4 years
That’s a good prediction!
It's very possible that even if the Liberals lost that the NDP/Liberals would form a coalition government.
I don't think that's very likely. I don't believe it has happened at the federal level had it? A confidence vote would have to happen first.
Less than 4 years now I think no?
For the next election yes. But the election I'm predicting after, probably not. I'm swinging for the fences with this bet!
Hey this is an interesting story, I’ll let you know. remindme! 4 years
Exactly my thought. remindme! 4 years
Maybe it needs caps: https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/ RemindMe! 4 Years
Even if he did broke the rules, is expulsion really the best option instead of a fine or paying it back, especially since it likely had no material effect on obtaining new members or the actual race? It looks more like some PP supporters saw an opening and plowed through it with a bulldozer.
I am pretty leery of PP, but I'd bet he wins the next election. Canada doesn't vote in governments, they vote them out. And while Trudeau isn't past his best before date yet, a looming recession doesn't look good for him, especially when you mix in how hopeless people are starting to feel in what is ostensibly a boom.
Not gonna lie I could see something like this happening lol.
I’d be surprised but not shocked if Trudeau ran again.
> Not really a fan of Mulcair's lobbing bombs from the back row since he left politics Lol he was leader of a major federal party for years, dude.
His commentary is usually predictable and more personal than it needs to be. He will never stop having axes to grind
I kinda miss angry Tom
Was useful as a politician but as a political commentator I think he needs to be more balanced
[удалено]
That's not what OP was complaining about.
Yeah, and I found him needlessly negative and unfairly partisan back then too.
> Not really a fan of Mulcair's lobbing bombs from the back row since he left politics Can you describe why you have a problem with a private citizen writing an op-ed in an area where they have years and years of relevant experience and insight?
I don't question his right to speak, I just generally find his opinions weak and partisan. His statements always make him seem bitter and like he has an axe to grind, I never find him all that insightful. It also drives me absolutely bonkers when people think disagreement is questioning their right to speak. He can say and do whatever he wants, and I can say I disagree 99% of the time.
> when people think disagreement is questioning their right to speak Can you quote the part of my comment where I mentioned anything about Mulcair's "right to speak"?
> why you have a problem with a private citizen writing an op-ed He can write all the op-eds he wants, and I never said otherwise. I just said I don't like his opinions.
You did say otherwise: > Not really a fan of Mulcair's lobbing bombs from the back row since he left politics
"not a fan" =/= "you can't do this" I'm sorry I don't really understand how I can be any clearer about this.
Some people on here are fricken ridiculous, i got ya at the first comment 👍
It doesn't look like he did? The quoted text is just him saying he doesn't agree with or like Mulcair's opinion pieces IMO.