Federal Government & Politics | Election 2021 FORUM POLL

[lio45]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Good to know that the opposition's only talking points against Freeland at this stage are kept to "but she's a woman". That'll propel the CPC high in the polls.

It's the other way around IMO, anyone who prefers the LPC in charge should be wary of Freeland as JT's replacement.

If the CPC wants to replace EOT for failing to move the needle this year... anyone who is rooting for a Blue Team PM should wish for someone like Caroline Mulroney running against Freeland federally in 2023.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If you think being an "uncharismatic policy wonk" is why Clinton lost, that's not it at all.

What's your theory on why Clinton lost? She won the popular vote by some 3 million votes.

She lost a few key Midwest states due to... it can be a number of things because any of them can be a factor: positions that were too anti-labor and union-irking and pro-globalization/pro-TPP, reputation as a Wall Street coastal elitist, comments about "deplorables", etc. (All facets of the same thing, if you ask me: summed up as too "globalist neoliberal coastal elitist freetrader wallstreeter" for the tastes of the manufacturing heartland of the Great Lakes.)

Since she lost by a hair (70,000-some votes), it seems obvious that had she been less uncharismatic and dislikable, she'd have pretty easily won the election (winning the popular vote by at least 3.07 million votes in this scenario).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If you think being an "uncharismatic policy wonk" is why Clinton lost, that's not it at all.

If you don't think it was part of the equation, you'd be wrong as well.

The baggage, or more importantly the conspiracy theory baggage being slagged by the repubs, was part of it as well, but you'd be remiss to think that Hillary didn't piss off some undecideds with her inability to relate to "the people".

Trump was a genius at it, tossing on a ball cap and honking a truck horn to say "I'm one of you", when in reality he would never have anything to do with his base if it weren't for political gain. Hillary came across as 'elitist', snobby and mostly socially awkward, the opposite of the part that Trump was playing.

It's a shame as she was uber qualified to be president - perhaps the best qualified of anybody in the past half century, but ability and qualifications do not get you the whole way in politics. Just look at JT - lots of baggage, no qualifications, but very relateable to enough people to be able to overlook the scandals and conflicts of interest, and vote him in time and time again.

So, yeah, politics is not really about qualifications and abilities, unfortunately, just popularity. Which brings me to my next point that there should be some minimum qualifications to be able to run for PM... but that would never go anywhere...

[Architype]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

If you don't think it was part of the equation, you'd be wrong as well.

The baggage, or more importantly the conspiracy theory baggage being slagged by the repubs, was part of it as well, but you'd be remiss to think that Hillary didn't piss off some undecideds with her inability to relate to "the people".

Trump was a genius at it, tossing on a ball cap and honking a truck horn to say "I'm one of you", when in reality he would never have anything to do with his base if it weren't for political gain. Hillary came across as 'elitist', snobby and mostly socially awkward, the opposite of the part that Trump was playing.

It's a shame as she was uber qualified to be president - perhaps the best qualified of anybody in the past half century, but ability and qualifications do not get you the whole way in politics. Just look at JT - lots of baggage, no qualifications, but very relateable to enough people to be able to overlook the scandals and conflicts of interest, and vote him in time and time again.

So, yeah, politics is not really about qualifications and abilities, unfortunately, just popularity. Which brings me to my next point that there should be some minimum qualifications to be able to run for PM... but that would never go anywhere...

It's simple, she lost because of her wardrobe.

[lio45]

As I pointed out, when you lose by a hair, it's pretty obvious that it wouldn't have taken much to have made a difference.

For example, the Liberal candidate probably would've won in Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia-Headingley if only he'd had a slightly nicer wardrobe (or any other of a number of conceivable minor factors).

If we want to analyze that guy's defeat, obviously there will be many possible factors that could have made the difference between victory or loss; "if only he'd done [minor thing] slightly differently, he probably would've been elected", and that's true for a number of "minor things" we can come up with.

[janbe74]

Rona Ambrose is the only conservative I would consider voting for.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by janbe74

Rona Ambrose is the only conservative I would consider voting for.

I like her. But she has baggage. Withdrew Canada from Kyoto. Opposed same sex marriage I believe.

[jigglysquishy]

George Bush Sr. is the only president since Truman to bring a third term to his party.

A big hit against Clinton is she ran after 8 years of a Democrat presidency.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If you think being an "uncharismatic policy wonk" is why Clinton lost, that's not it at all.

It most certainly didn't help.

[Marshsparrow]

Originally Posted by lio45

What's your theory on why Clinton lost? She won the popular vote by some 3 million votes.

She lost a few key Midwest states due to... it can be a number of things because any of them can be a factor: positions that were too anti-labor and union-irking and pro-globalization/pro-TPP, reputation as a Wall Street coastal elitist, comments about "deplorables", etc. (All facets of the same thing, if you ask me: summed up as too "globalist neoliberal coastal elitist freetrader wallstreeter" for the tastes of the manufacturing heartland of the Great Lakes.)

Since she lost by a hair (70,000-some votes), it seems obvious that had she been less uncharismatic and dislikable, she'd have pretty easily won the election (winning the popular vote by at least 3.07 million votes in this scenario).

Bernie Saunders told his supporters to stay home rather than vote for Clinton...

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

Bernie Saunders told his supporters to stay home rather than vote for Clinton...

That's not true. Not only did he explicitly endorse her, he did dozens of rallies across the country to support her candidacy.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/berni...b03a9e75d3fd93

[Architype]

Originally Posted by lio45

As I pointed out, when you lose by a hair, it's pretty obvious that it wouldn't have taken much to have made a difference.

For example, the Liberal candidate probably would've won in Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia-Headingley if only he'd had a slightly nicer wardrobe (or any other of a number of conceivable minor factors).

If we want to analyze that guy's defeat, obviously there will be many possible factors that could have made the difference between victory or loss; "if only he'd done [minor thing] slightly differently, he probably would've been elected", and that's true for a number of "minor things" we can come up with.

Some can wear it more convincingly than others, subtlety counts.


https://www.theurbanlist.com/a-list/...power-dressing


https://daraford.wordpress.com/2017/...el-on-fashion/

[thurmas]

Originally Posted by janbe74

Rona Ambrose is the only conservative I would consider voting for.

She's a lobbyist for the tobacco companies

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by lio45

What's your theory on why Clinton lost? She won the popular vote by some 3 million votes.

Shitty campaigning, perceived (and real) scale tipping by the DNC, and a constant slander campaign by the Republicans from Whitewater to Benghazi.

And she still came that close.

Listen, you started all of this by comparing Clinton to Freeland. I called BS on that. The rest is this Clinton rabbit hole that went off into left field.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

I think Freeland is more intelligent and capable than Hillary. She's less experienced, wealthy, and not as good a public speaker.

She's closer to an Anglo Dion than anything else.

I would say that Freeland is much more effective as getting her message across than Dion or Hillary Clinton. She is very well educated and is amazing when it comes to international affairs. She was such a good negotiator for the revamped NAFTA that she really pissed off Donald Trump.

Does anybody remember when Freeland was a frequent guest on Bill Maher's show Politically Incorrect?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Listen, you started all of this by comparing Clinton to Freeland.

Actually, Truenorth00 and MonctonRad started the comparing of Freeland to Clinton, I then gave my two cents by agreeing with them.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Loco101

... and is amazing when it comes to international affairs. She was such a good negotiator ...

I hope for her sake that I'm not a representative sample, because all I remember her for is crying in Brussels.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by lio45

That's a good point. People often limit themselves to looking for someone who already has a strong national profile (and if there's no such person at the moment, declare the search for a next leader to be hopeless), but there's tons of people who aren't known at all at the moment but who have potential.

Anyone can go from not known at all to being popular, if they have what it takes.

Jack Layton went from zero to landslide in a flash, in Quebec in 2011. He had no profile whatsoever before. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

Instead of people like Poilievre and Ashton, who have "national profiles" but are totally flawed as leaders, the parties would be better served picking a competent and likable person that has no profile at the moment (keywords: "at the moment"; that'll change).

That's why I mentioned Northern Ontario MPP Gilles Bisson. And don't forget that Jagmeet Singh was an Ontario NDP MPP right until be won the federal NDP leadership in 2017. Singh wasn't very well known at that time.

Bisson is very well known in Ontario but isn't flashy like Singh. Bisson knows Northern Ontario very well and he also knows a lot about Toronto having been an MPP at Queen's Park for so long. And he has big time credibility with First Nations and Indigenous peoples. But his big plus is the way he talks with regular people and can convince those on the right, centre and left to vote for him.