Who will you be voting for??
- Thread starter Phil C. McNasty
- Start date
You're just doubling down on a pejorative slogan.
You're allegedly the self-proclaimed "substance" guy.
Canadians weren't scared. They voted Liberal because they think Carney could deal with the U.S. better. I highly doubt he has any cards the Conservatives don't in dealing with the U.S.
PS- Despite all the hyperbole, most Canadians know that many multiples more Canadians to the U.S. relative to Americans who migrate to Canada. This despite the number of Americans is 8.5x the number of Canadians.
Last edited:
Well you are allegedly the self-proclaimed "expert in all things" guy.
So you should know it isn't a slogan and stop gaslighting.
Canadians were definitely concerned with American authoritarianism making its way into Canada.
And also tariffs.
A guy who had a 20+ point lead 6 weeks ago, couldn't be trusted to stand up to Trump, because he was seen as MAGA-lite and lost his own riding.
I guess we will have to wait for that to sink in for conservatives.
I'm just the guy who knows how to pull data into the discussion to challenge conventional thinking.
As I said, multiples more of Canadians vis-a-vis Americans will leave for the alleged "authoritarian" U.S.
I'd rather look at data to understand things rather than listen to talking heads tell us how to think about the world.
Sigh.
Migration:
Firstly I asked ChatGPT and it says 7000 to 10000 Canadians move to the US every year, and 10000 to 12000 Americans do to Canada.
Maybe you'd want to quibble over immigration per 100,000 or some stat like that.
But this is irrelevant.
Data that may be helpful:
What are their voting preferences?
Which state do they move to?
Why do they move to the US?
How many of them move permanently for quality of life reasons?
This might begin to help you if the data is in your favour but even then the numbers are too low to come to a conclusion that you desire.
And none of this explains why a guy who had a 20+ point lead just 6 weeks ago lost his own riding.
As you said the conservatives and liberals have more or less the same tools when it comes to tariff response.
I will go one step further and say that they more or less advocate for the same tariff responses too.
They both agree on counter tariffs, agree there should be more intra-provincial trade, agree we should be more self-reliant etc.,
So what caused people to turn?
It is cultural values.
Canadians do not want American authoritarianism.
What you hear on TERB is not reality.
Look at the poll here.
Conservatives won lol.
Very different from how the election turned out.
It's kind of scary how someone can string along words in a somewhat articulately manner but be weak in the analytical component. There's over 800,000 Canadians in the U.S. I can't help you with your source of information. Perhaps stop chatting with your computer or smartphone.
I don't care what motivates them to come here. What matters the whole "authoritarian" hyperbole isn't scaring anyone. So keep repeating the authoritarian line over and over. When the Canadian immigration reverses itself substantially, I will start paying attention.
You have a habit of bringing up something and then being dismissive when challenged.
So why make a weak point you are not prepared to debate? Beats me.
I like how you conveniently ignored all the follow up questions on the data that I had, while talking about analyzing data. lmao.
And 900,000+ Americans live in Canada.
I dont know what that is supposed to prove or how that explains Pierre's loss after holding such a substantial lead for such a long time?.
It is America's authoritarianism and descent into fascism that made Canadians turn on him.
I guess if you were a Canadian conservative I'd ask you to wake up but since you are an American conservative I will just say, you can assume what you want, but believe me when I say, Canadians do not want Trumpism or your brand of conservatism.
By the way to your point about immigration reversing:
Let's check your math and see if you are correct, SKooby.
Libs-169 NDP-7 One needs 172 seats for a majority sooooooo, let me ask you one time.
Can the NDP prop up the Libs?
*hint 169+7=???
Canada's balance of power
Leading seats by party, counting under way
A bar chart showing the number of leading seats by party in Canada's federal election. Leading seats include seats where parties are ahead but not confirmed to have won. There are 172 seats need for a majority in Canada's House of Commons. The Liberals are on course to win 169 seats, the Conservatives 144, the Bloc Quebecois 22, NDP 7 and the Green Party 1.
Source: Elections Canada • 99% of polls reported
Results are preliminary and include seats where parties are leading but not confirmed to have won. Last updated: 15:23, 29 Apr 2025
One way or another you're missing the big picture. They're are 8.5x more Americans than Canadians. They're are simply many more of us in the U.S. and around the world.
American fascism is a narrative. About 2% of Canadians living in the U.S. is a factual reality. The factual reality doesn't jive with the narrative.
The reason we are talking about it is because you said this:
PS- The problem on pushing on the scary MAGA-lite in Canada thing too much is that you inadvertently undermine the case that voters see Carney as the best person to fix the Trudeau economic doldrums. We know older voters had a general comfort of staying with the Liberals. I think most of us who follow politics knows this turns upside down the normal political alignment of younger voters favoring liberals.
We have funded new social housing in Toronto that is quite good and well done.
Meanwhile, DoFo is trying to build an LRT line with private/public funding that hasn't opened in 14 years.
And under DoFo, who gave out massive developer breaks, private housing starts were the lowest in the country.
I understand that.
Which is why I said you'd want to quibble over rates of immigration.
But this does not explain Canadian opinions on American fascism.
And you dont know what that 2% actually think.
The fact that they are living there means nothing.
That's like saying the Jews who lived in fascist Germany were okay with German fascism just because they happened to live there.
And American fascism is not a narrative.
It is very much reality.
I dont think it undermines it.
There are multiple reasons why one votes for a candidate and often times it is a combination of various reasons.
So Carney was seen as strong, economically knowledgeable, democratic, level-headed, reasonable and inclusive.
Pierre was seen as grating, MAGA-lite, not too knowledgeable economically, divisive, authoritarian and as a glorified sloganeer.
Even so he held the lead for a long time, even after Carney's appointment, but the tariffs and 51st state comments, along with Trump's authoritarian deportations and EOs alarmed Canadians enough to reject Pierre.
Therefore MAGA-culture played a huge role in this election. Just as much as the economy.
You know what the funniest part of this is too? Carney is the one that actually has MAGA ties.
His business has done with Trump's son-in-law.
Carney’s ex-company Brookfield has deep financial ties with the Trump family
Canadian investment firm Brookfield, formerly chaired by Liberal leader Mark Carney has close business ties to the Trump family.
www.junonews.com
But now it He's ready to go against Trump, blah blah blah. These guys do business with each other every day and know the same people.
I don't think that surprises me. I don't find anything conspiratorial in wealthy, successful people doing business and moving in the same circles.You know what the funniest part of this is too? Carney is the one that actually has MAGA ties.
His business has done with Trump's son-in-law.
Carney’s ex-company Brookfield has deep financial ties with the Trump family
Canadian investment firm Brookfield, formerly chaired by Liberal leader Mark Carney has close business ties to the Trump family.
But now it He's ready to go against Trump, blah blah blah. These guys do business with each other every day and know the same people.
I believe Bloomberg and Trump know each other well. They couldn't be more different politically.
That's not a good example at all. Using your example as the comparative basis, I am actually saying Jews were not moving to Germany during the Nazi years. In contrast, Canadians are moving to and staying in a so-called fascist America. Simply put, the drama of such is overblown by American media and political opponents.
The best, but weakest argument might be these almost one million Canadians like warmer weather and will put up with the so-called fascism. When you read that back, it doesn't make Canadians seem very principled if indeed your supposition of fascism was close to being true.
The likely worst argument would be Canadians in the U.S. tolerate the so-called fascism to find opportunities that no longer exist in Canada. That would be admitting some amount of failure with Canadian governance.
I think Carney has the advantage of being a relatively political enigma. This glowing characterization will fray under real world conditions and decision-making. Carney is certainly more political than Matthew McConaughey, but it reminded me when people said they would vote for McConaughey for Texas Governor. I think McC put out some feelers and realized when he starts taking actual positions he would immediately lose chunks of voters.
The bigger advantage that Carney had was an outside adversary. It is the well-documented phenomenon that failing leadership can benefit from foreign adversaries. Carney didn't conjure up a foreign foe, but he did benefit greatly from such.
Politicians over recent years have used the term "affordable housing" as a substitute for what it actually is: subsidized housing.
If they call it what it actually is, many more people will come to the realization that it's housing their taxes are paying for so that someone else can live there. It's not an affordable home that someone can work to buy, although that's the narrative they are trying to peddle.
It's indeed a liberal tactic and marketing scheme in trying to convince people that they can afford to buy a home even though they have stacked the economic cards against anyone actually being able to do this.
If you make people believe that you will help them own their own home, they will vote for you. The Liberal party in Canada are masters of marketing...and deception, as proven by how many elections they have won since 2015 yet people keep struggling.
I realize that. Younger U.S. voters did shift towards Trump.
It presents some interesting thoughts. I think political scientists are trying to glean through the shift right now.
I myself wonder where this trend goes when the general rule was younger voters tend to be more liberal and become more conservative with age.
I believe some were noting sentimental voting patterns among baby boomers. In other words, many baby boomers are locked into a party preference.
Either way, generational gaps in voting is not a new phenomenon. I can see in U.S. society that policies of both parties have a big tendency to benefit older Americans.
Conservatives would spend to make Canada more independent. How else would that be accomplished?
Conservatives wanted to cancel the carbon tax.
Conservatives wanted to control immigration.
Conservatives wanted to reduce the size and expense of government.
All of the above...adopted by Carney. (until he inevitably backtracks soon)
Trudeau gone.
Singh gone.
Carney promising Conservative policies.
Conservatives with a very strong opposition and record setting support.
Conservatives having more power in parliament without being sabotaged by the NDP.
I would say Poilievre not winning his riding is inconsequential based on all the accomplishments above.
And remember: you voted for Carney because you think he will save you from Trump...and you have yet to provide anything concrete differences between Carney and the other candidates in that context.
i.e. you swallowed Liberal propaganda again.
