I’m going to reiterate a prediction I first made about 5 months ago, that Poilievre was going to win at least a minority but it would actually be very tight. He campaigned hard for 2 years off-season while receiving little to no journalistic scrutiny – just propaganda from the right-wing rags. I always believed his lead would be heavily eroded when the general public started paying attention to him, rather than just his base built on grievance politics.
I never could have dared hope I’d be this wrong. But the factors I identified are still in play, and the difference largely amounts to strong circumstantial reinforcements. I.e. the new elements are the undercutting of his fake issues and Dumpster showing us what not to do so much more clearly (understandably to a wide audience) than I anticipated.
Having serious stakes really amps up how tired many of us actually are with politicians running on vibes. I don’t think it’s accurate to call Carney’s behavior vibes when it’s marked by things like answering questions and fulfilling promises. Vibes are a big part of what’s getting rejected so hard with both Poilievre and to a lesser but still significant extent Singh. And it’s because this time we can’t afford to just play the usual “it’s time for something else” whack-a-mole.
At this point I wouldn’t reduce anyone’s views and choices to being vibes based. Even the really bad ones are rooted in deeply held ideology and deliberate movements to radicalize people by appealing to/infiltrating those ideologies.
The stakes in Canada are certainly higher than in the US where many do not know or are just now learning what a tariff is.
Perhaps this election is less vibes based due to those high stakes but I do feel Carney is the right vibe, or at least the one Canadians are looking for, even if it is not intentional and just happens to be who he is.
He is in many ways the antithesis to Trump, in terms of being relatively dry and matter of fact, which is the type of leader Canadians are looking to rally around.
I appreciate your insights. Far right wolf-in-sheeps-clothing conservatives have seen success globally by presenting themselves as reformists and it seemed like Canada was about to go down the same path.
Perhaps it wouldn’t have played out that way once Poilievre’s lack of substance received broader scrutinity but Trudeau’s and the Liberal party’s approval rating just a few months ago would suggest otherwise. Poilievre, Jenni Byrne and the rest of the conservative party likely assumed this would be a cakewalk.
Credit to Trudeau for realizing people were tired of him and Canada for having a system where a new leader could be voted in by the party before an election was called, so that it didn’t turn into the shitshow that was the Biden-Harris handoff.
I don’t know if I’d say the stakes are higher. Poilievre could win and I’d still rather be here than the states (for as long as here still isn’t). 😛
For vibes, I look more to Charlie Angus. And it’s probably for the best that he can reflect what’s in our hearts and give us that catharsis, without being in a position to really enflame tensions. There’s already a considerable difference between what I’d want to say and do and what my smarter more measured, dispassionate self would say and do. And then Carney finds a stance and tone that’s close to my latter option, but I must begrudgingly admit is even better.
I’m going to reiterate a prediction I first made about 5 months ago, that Poilievre was going to win at least a minority but it would actually be very tight. He campaigned hard for 2 years off-season while receiving little to no journalistic scrutiny – just propaganda from the right-wing rags. I always believed his lead would be heavily eroded when the general public started paying attention to him, rather than just his base built on grievance politics.
I never could have dared hope I’d be this wrong. But the factors I identified are still in play, and the difference largely amounts to strong circumstantial reinforcements. I.e. the new elements are the undercutting of his fake issues and Dumpster showing us what not to do so much more clearly (understandably to a wide audience) than I anticipated.
Having serious stakes really amps up how tired many of us actually are with politicians running on vibes. I don’t think it’s accurate to call Carney’s behavior vibes when it’s marked by things like answering questions and fulfilling promises. Vibes are a big part of what’s getting rejected so hard with both Poilievre and to a lesser but still significant extent Singh. And it’s because this time we can’t afford to just play the usual “it’s time for something else” whack-a-mole.
At this point I wouldn’t reduce anyone’s views and choices to being vibes based. Even the really bad ones are rooted in deeply held ideology and deliberate movements to radicalize people by appealing to/infiltrating those ideologies.
The stakes in Canada are certainly higher than in the US where many do not know or are just now learning what a tariff is.
Perhaps this election is less vibes based due to those high stakes but I do feel Carney is the right vibe, or at least the one Canadians are looking for, even if it is not intentional and just happens to be who he is.
He is in many ways the antithesis to Trump, in terms of being relatively dry and matter of fact, which is the type of leader Canadians are looking to rally around.
I appreciate your insights. Far right wolf-in-sheeps-clothing conservatives have seen success globally by presenting themselves as reformists and it seemed like Canada was about to go down the same path.
Perhaps it wouldn’t have played out that way once Poilievre’s lack of substance received broader scrutinity but Trudeau’s and the Liberal party’s approval rating just a few months ago would suggest otherwise. Poilievre, Jenni Byrne and the rest of the conservative party likely assumed this would be a cakewalk.
Credit to Trudeau for realizing people were tired of him and Canada for having a system where a new leader could be voted in by the party before an election was called, so that it didn’t turn into the shitshow that was the Biden-Harris handoff.
I don’t know if I’d say the stakes are higher. Poilievre could win and I’d still rather be here than the states (for as long as here still isn’t). 😛
For vibes, I look more to Charlie Angus. And it’s probably for the best that he can reflect what’s in our hearts and give us that catharsis, without being in a position to really enflame tensions. There’s already a considerable difference between what I’d want to say and do and what my smarter more measured, dispassionate self would say and do. And then Carney finds a stance and tone that’s close to my latter option, but I must begrudgingly admit is even better.