What I’m going to say is almost conspiracy theory stuff but I almost believe that Gerald Butts is the real PM - even now, a few years after he officially resigned. I wouldn’t say that Trudeau’s stupid but I don’t think that he’s that smart either.
I’d say, plan for going Orange. Trudeau is what he is, so I can’t imagine you’ll change you opinion there, and Charest has essentially zero chance of winning the leadership under the current CPC party membership. Remember, it wasn’t so long ago they split the vote 50/50 between Scheer and Bernier. O’Toole was probably the closest to a “moderate” we’ll see out of them any time soon. I suspect the whole party will have to burn to the ground before we see them seriously consider a non-whackjob for leader.
I dunno…they’ve lost three elections in a row to a vapid mannequin, I have to think that somewhere in CPC HQ there’s someone with power saying “Look, fellas…”
I would say that Trudeau is a pretty intelligent guy. Gerry is much more so, but I could not estimate his current involvement. The Liberals have often talked a good game, but not done very much. I think they have done well on a few files. I would have liked to see action on many more.
I think that given the huge and unprecedented amount of recent spending, some of it quite necessary, they should have sought more participation from other parties. Of course, that might be optimistic given the dysfunctional realities of Ottawa party politics.
Poilievre is very smart. I think one could easily underestimate him. But his early campaign strategies suggest he would not necessarily excel at unifying, which might be a challenging task for any next leader.
Trump gets less than half the votes in a contest held among conservatives. And that qualifies as popularity.
What would Trump have to do to qualify as unpopular? Go head to head with Biden and come in third?
No doubt my thread title could have been better chosen. But the number still astonished me. This is after Ukraine. This is after a lot of things. Sure, he did things some people liked - I mentioned my pet issue theory. And Joe has clearly struggled sometimes. However, he has not really attracted the venom quite the way Ms. Clinton did.
I think he’s reasonably intelligent, certainly not a genius, but I think one skill he definitely has is knowing when to listen to other people. And that’s a key part of being a successful leader, even more than personally being brilliant. Lok at the NAFTA renegotiation. That could have been a complete disaster for Canada, but JT put someone smart in charge of it, and we came out of it rather well. Lots of politicians would have wanted to get involved in the details of such an major issue, for personal glory reasons, but JT knew enough to not jog the negotiators’ elbows.
I would recommend that the OP take a gander at the posting history of @Sam_Stone a Canadian who although doesn’t support Trump (or at least has enough of an instinct for self preservation not to admit it on the dope) supports the American Republican party politics up and down the line.
I don’t find it at all surprising that there might be some Conservative Canadians who being fed up with the politics in Otrawa would take any opportunity to own the libs, particularly if all that is required is to answer a hypothetical poll question that has no chance of actually causing them to fall under to leadership of putting an ignorant narcissistic sociopath in charge of their country.
I’m definitely not Canadian. Having observed their politics over the years, they never really had the same asshole movement as the USA did in the 1990s with Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh ushering in a new era of assholism on the right. Way before Trump, there was “Barney Fag” and Rush Limbaugh calling a young Chelsea Clinton the White House dog.
Now that Trump actually got elected, he’s a hero for those who want to be assholes publicly
44% of 30% isn’t all that popular.
It’s tribalism, and a few people are drawn to populist blowhards.
It’ll be neat when we have a Conservative party that has an actual leader, won’t it? Maybe I’ll live to see that. I’m 50, so if I can push 90, I might.
Well, I voted for Charest his last go-round, if any of us can remember that far back, so I’d consider voting for him again. But it would depend on how exactly he ended up getting the leadership position. It realistic terms, the only way I can see him winning is to pull an O’Toole, and just pander to the crazies, but that would be a deal breaker for me.
I suppose there could be a massive fire on stage at the leadership debate, of which he could be the sole survivor and he thus wins by default without having to compromise his positions, but that’s starting to get into Bad Sitcom levels of improbable.
The problem of course is that you really only need 30-40% of popular support to form the government. If we leave aside the soft middle that moves between Conservative/Liberal parties then that 44% likely comes from committed Conservative members. That is worrisome.
Although 44% doesn’t go far towards winning a majority if it’s heavily concentrated in a few Western ridings.
Just because a significant minority supports something doesn’t mean it’ll get play at the policy level. Many conservative voters (and not an insignificant number of Liberals, but far fewer) want abortion to be illegal, but the Conservatives were in power for almost ten years and never brought it up. It depends how your internal party coalition is built, and a Conservative government MUST include less conservative members and voters or it cannot have been elected in the first place. Were the NDP to get elected, they simply can’t accomplish that appealing only to true socialists, so an NDP government cannot possibly be that radical or else they wouldn’t get elected.