When will populism come to Canada?

dre · December 5, 2016

28 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Well I didn't say the media ruined Leitch's popularity, I meant the media raked her over the coals for it. The media took a poll question asking if we should screen for "Canadian values" and somehow translated that into it being a key part of her official platform or something, which is disingenuous. Leitch was putting out a feeler, just like John McCallum put out a feeler on dramatically increasing immigration. But I'm sure both want to pursue these policies.

Well of COURSE they raked her over the coals for it. The idea is totally impractical and silly.

eyeball · December 5, 2016

You'd need the Vulcan mind-meld to make Leitch's brain-fart work.

-1=e^ipi · December 5, 2016

3 hours ago, hernanday said:

However, as for the leadership race. Liberals had already figured out with Ignatieff and Dion that it was not enough to simply run candidates with good policies. Liberals for the most part share a large view on policies. They came to learn that canadian electorate does not vote policy enough to be able to run good policy and win after having a series of 3 or 4 candidates losing on policy. Just look south of the border, Clinton was policy, Trump was charisma. Charisma won. Clinton was boring and out of touch

Here's an alternative theory.

Every 8-10 years the people decide 'it's time for a change' regardless of the party or the leaders and until then they don't really want to change. Seems to be pretty good at explaining observations.

So maybe if Trudeau ran in 2008 or 2011 he would have lost, and if ignatieff or dion ran in 2015 they would have won.

Or if Romney ran in 2016, he would have won.

3 hours ago, hernanday said:

Trudeau was charismatic. I don't see Hall being a better candidate. Mulcair in theory should have won, but his lack of charisma cost him.

Or perhaps it was because people were fed up with Harper and disliked his policies. So NDP voters strategically voted for the liberals to get rid of Harper. The fact that Trudeau was behind in the polls for most of the election and it took him so long to get ahead despite going up against unpopular Harper suggests that Trudeau wasn't the best candidate to beat Harper.

H10 · December 6, 2016

9 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Here's an alternative theory.

Every 8-10 years the people decide 'it's time for a change' regardless of the party or the leaders and until then they don't really want to change. Seems to be pretty good at explaining observations.

Most politicians enter into politics quiet old if they are seasoned. If they are good at their job they can stick around much longer like john chritien but age factor pushed him out. The issue tends to be those type of candidates draw all the air in the room and they leave weak successors.

9 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

So maybe if Trudeau ran in 2008 or 2011 he would have lost, and if ignatieff or dion ran in 2015 they would have won.

Or if Romney ran in 2016, he would have won.

Romney would still have lost because he would not connect to the voters trump did. Trudeau would not have lost those elections, because iggy and dion were deeply unpopular, and lacked charisma. A charismatic candidate like Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan or Eisenhower can easily unseat a sitting president like Bush or Carter or Stevenson type candidates.

9 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Or perhaps it was because people were fed up with Harper and disliked his policies. So NDP voters strategically voted for the liberals to get rid of Harper. The fact that Trudeau was behind in the polls for most of the election and it took him so long to get ahead despite going up against unpopular Harper suggests that Trudeau wasn't the best candidate to beat Harper.

He wasn't, but he had showed a charisma that Canadians had not seen, that is why he surged in the polls. Mulclair was obviously more qualified, and Harper even more qualified. They picked the most likable candidate.

-1=e^ipi · December 6, 2016

16 minutes ago, hernanday said:

He wasn't, but he had showed a charisma that Canadians had not seen, that is why he surged in the polls. Mulclair was obviously more qualified, and Harper even more qualified. They picked the most likable candidate.

Romney in 2012 had 19.4% votes per capita.

Trump in 2016 had 19.4% votes per capita.

Main difference was Hillary Clinton lost votes per capita relative to Obama.

Seems that it was more Hilary Clinton being super unpopular, rather than Trump being popular.

I think if Trump ran in 2012 and Romney ran in 2016, Trump would have lost, Romney would have won.

16 minutes ago, hernanday said:

He wasn't, but he had showed a charisma that Canadians had not seen, that is why he surged in the polls. Mulclair was obviously more qualified, and Harper even more qualified. They picked the most likable candidate.

Trudeau 2015 - 39.5% of the vote

Harper 2011 - 39.6% of the vote

I guess Harper in 2011 was even more charismatic.

Also, I guess 39.5% of the people that voted all Canadians.

H10 · December 6, 2016

5 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Romney in 2012 had 19.4% votes per capita.

Trump in 2016 had 19.4% votes per capita.

Main difference was Hillary Clinton lost votes per capita relative to Obama.

I agree if this is accurate.

5 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Seems that it was more Hilary Clinton being super unpopular, rather than Trump being popular.

I think if Trump ran in 2012 and Romney ran in 2016, Trump would have lost, Romney would have won.

It has to do with the more charismatic leader though. Trump was even more unfavourable in polls than hilary. His charisma closed the gap. Trump would lose because Obama has more charisma. Romney would have lost because he is not as charismatic as trump and he would not have gotten 30% of the vote in detroit and the high % of african american and female voters trump did.

5 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Trudeau 2015 - 39.5% of the vote

Harper 2011 - 39.6% of the vote

I guess Harper in 2011 was even more charismatic.

Also, I guess 39.5% of the people that voted all Canadians.

Harper had 37.6% of the vote in 2011, not 39.6, and Trudeau had 39.5%. Trudeau also had less room to manuever as the NDP got 30% of the vote as compared to just 18% in the previous election. Harper was compartively more charismatic than iggy.

-1=e^ipi · December 6, 2016

1 minute ago, hernanday said:

His charisma closed the gap.

I disagree. I think that if there is a social stigma for taking a political position, then people will lie to polls. There was a social stigma to supporting Brexit and there was a social stigma to supporting Trump. Which is why polls were inaccurate. Expect the same thing with LePen.

I like how we are talking such a tiny difference in popular support let to you it's all charisma! Victories of Trudeau/Trump couldn't have anything to do with the unpopularities of who they were running up against.

H10 · December 6, 2016

45 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

I disagree. I think that if there is a social stigma for taking a political position, then people will lie to polls. There was a social stigma to supporting Brexit and there was a social stigma to supporting Trump. Which is why polls were inaccurate. Expect the same thing with LePen.

Stigma of supporting Trump? I doubt it. He had thousands and thousands of people going to his rallies.

The pollsters used the polls on most likely voters, and Trump brought in alot of UNLIKELY voters. Widespread voter suppression in swing states and Gerrymandering also made things alot harder to predict. That makes things hard to project, because when someone has not voted in the last 2 elections, and they show up they are classed as an unlikely voter and not counted in these polls usually. Clinton also had low turnout from likely voters.

Also most of the polls were national, and they were largely correct (it is a myth they were wrong) in that Clinton had a national lead as she currently has 48% of the vote compared to Donald's 46%. I did not see alot of electoral college polls, the polls had the swing states in the margin of error so a Trump win was not like something that couldn't happen. It just needed all the stars to align and they did. From what I seen the Brexit polls had stay ahead by like 1-2% points, seems to me to be in the margin of error.

The error was not the polls but rather how people misinterpreted them because they don't understand it. They though 48-46% Clinton = Clinton wins, not understanding that the % have to come in the right spots.

45 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

I like how we are talking such a tiny difference in popular support let to you it's all charisma! Victories of Trudeau/Trump couldn't have anything to do with the unpopularities of who they were running up against.

Sure but why are they unpopular? Lack of charisma comparatively. Harper was unpopular before he even took office. Polls showed Trump was more unpopular than Clinton. People didn't care that he was unpopular and is a constant liar, they are voting for an attitude, for charisma, they don't care he is unqualified and hides his tax returns and is corrupt. It is the same reason people vote in Hitler and Mussolini, charisma can really woo people over easily. If you listen to the Trump voters, their reasons are mostly not logical. It is o Obamacare wasn't working out good for me because the price went too high. Ok, but now it will go higher when it is repealed by republicans. Or, Trump will have to face checks and balances, no he wont he controls all levers of gov't now. The dems did not give me what I wanted for 8 years, yeah but the republicans blocked them in congress and the house for 8 years so you are going to reward them with more seats in government.

-1=e^ipi · December 6, 2016

11 minutes ago, hernanday said:

Trump brought in alot of UNLIKELY voters.

Trump had same votes per capita as Romney. While Trump may have attracted votes from say the rust belt white working class, he lost votes relative to Romney as well. A lot of conservatives didn't vote for him (example: Ben Shapiro, Romney, Kasich, etc.) and he did very poorly with Mormons.

11 minutes ago, hernanday said:

From what I seen the Brexit polls had stay ahead by like 1-2% points, seems to me to be in the margin of error.

Margin of error for 1 poll, sure. But not from multiple polls combined consistently underestimating brexit / trump support. The discrepancy was probably due to stigma.

16 minutes ago, hernanday said:

Sure but why are they unpopular? Lack of charisma comparatively.

There have been lots of uncharismatic popular leaders throughout the years. Your whole charisma explains everything argument is nonsense. Also, how does one objectively measure charisma?

cybercoma · December 6, 2016

On 2016-12-04 at 6:39 PM, -1=e^ipi said:

During the ELECTION. I said during the LEADERSHIP race. Come on, name some. You have legalization of marijuana. What else?

What a nonsensical splitting of hairs.

H10 · December 6, 2016

7 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Trump had same votes per capita as Romney. While Trump may have attracted votes from say the rust belt white working class, he lost votes relative to Romney as well. A lot of conservatives didn't vote for him (example: Ben Shapiro, Romney, Kasich, etc.) and he did very poorly with Mormons.

I thought he actually had less.

Nope, Trump did better with Latinos, African Americans etc. Trump garnered 13% of the African American male vote, and 2% more nationally than Romney, and alot of that was concentrated in Detroit, just pushing him over the top there. Trump lost votes in places like Utah, or heavily republican and heavily democratic areas, so it didn't change the EC for him though.

Trump brought out unlikely voters, ones who do not usually vote, so it is difficult to poll. How do you calculate a person who hasn't voted for a decade just showing up?

7 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Margin of error for 1 poll, sure. But not from multiple polls combined consistently underestimating brexit / trump support. The discrepancy was probably due to stigma.

I don't think so. People just misinterpreted the results for the us one, the polls were accurate nationally. People errnoeously assumed that winning popular vote = winning election. When this isn't the case. Brexit polling was very close, I recall the poll I saw the night before was within margin of error. In the US there was widespread voting suppression as well, voters being purged last minute, voters being removed from the rolls but did not know it, voted, gave honest answers but it didn't show up in the vote. The polls were not wrong in those case, people told the truth, but their votes were removed without their knowledge.

7 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

There have been lots of uncharismatic popular leaders throughout the years. Your whole charisma explains everything argument is nonsense. Also, how does one objectively measure charisma?

The leader just has to be more charismatic than his opponent. Of course there are other factors like organization or time, establishment, name recognizition, etc. But all else being relatively equal, people choose the more charismatic candidate of the two. George W Bush isn't a hotbed of Charisma, but compared to gore, he is.

Using a charismometer

Argus · December 6, 2016

22 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

No. All i have is circumstantial evidence of every non-conservative I've spoken to about him thinking he's heartless and greedy because that's his MO on the show. His ideology is O'Learyism not populism.

And how many of these 'non conservatives' have ever seen him on anything other than a scripted reality show?

Argus · December 6, 2016

22 hours ago, dre said:

Well of COURSE they raked her over the coals for it. The idea is totally impractical and silly.

Says the left. I disagree. It's quote doable. I'd like to see it done.

Smallc · December 6, 2016

14 minutes ago, Argus said:

And how many of these 'non conservatives' have ever seen him on anything other than a scripted reality show?

I've never seen him be any different any time he appeared in public. He's only in it for money.

dre · December 6, 2016

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Says the left. I disagree. It's quote doable. I'd like to see it done.

Can you list a single useful question that might on this screening questionnaire? Given the fact that we will be telegraphing this process to the entire world can you explain why anyone would be stupid enough to answer in a way that would cause the rejection of their application?

Seriously... how can you not see how stupid this is? You would be way better off spending this money by strengthening the existing background check process.

Argus · December 6, 2016

2 hours ago, dre said:

Can you list a single useful question that might on this screening questionnaire? Given the fact that we will be telegraphing this process to the entire world can you explain why anyone would be stupid enough to answer in a way that would cause the rejection of their application.

In order to come up with the appropriate questions you would need a reasonably deep appreciation of the culture and religion of the people you are testing. As I have said previously, you ask questions around the real question you want answered, not direct questions that most people will know to lie about. If you take a personality test here for a job you aren't going to be asked if you will steal from your employer or take time off when you're not sick. The questions are a lot less direct than that and I don't think most people in third world countries are sophisticated enough to grasp what they ought to say. Hell, a lot of people in THIS country aren't, which is why they use these tests.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Argus

Argus · December 6, 2016

3 hours ago, Smallc said:

I've never seen him be any different any time he appeared in public. He's only in it for money.

But the only questions he's asked are with regard to money, so of course he's going to speak to profit.

Just remember he's nowhere near as flaky as Trump and Trump is the next president.

dre · December 6, 2016

1 hour ago, Argus said:

In order to come up with the appropriate questions you would need a reasonably deep appreciation of the culture and religion of the people you are testing. As I have said previously, you ask questions around the real question you want answered, not direct questions that most people will know to lie about. If you take a personality test here for a job you aren't going to be asked if you will steal from your employer or take time off when you're not sick. The questions are a lot less direct than that and I don't think most people in third world countries are sophisticated enough to grasp what they ought to say. Hell, a lot of people in THIS country aren't, which is why they use these tests.

So you cant come up with a single useful question then?

blueblood · December 7, 2016

Kellie leitch is only gaining traction because of her controversial statements being run with by the media. All she has is identity politics and approving pipelines which won't be enough to win anything. I think O'Leary will be kingmaker as there are other Tory candidates with ideas. I think O'Leary is right about going for the best fiscal policy and putting that forward in a campaign. As much as Trudeau is a fool, he won with the combination of people being sick of Harper and having an economic plan (a foolish one, but a plan nonetheless). Trump won also because he had some sort of economic plan. Trudeau gets term two if Ontario and Quebec has job growth.

-1=e^ipi · December 7, 2016

17 hours ago, cybercoma said:

What a nonsensical splitting of hairs.

It isn't nonsensical.

Still waiting for you to come up with some policies.

There were a lot of candidates that actually had policies in the liberal leadership race. But they went with the substitute drama teacher with no policies due to his last name.

We could have abolished supply management, or had an online bill of rights if a decent candidate was actually chosen.

-1=e^ipi · December 7, 2016

15 hours ago, hernanday said:

I thought he actually had less.

The numbers are online. You can look it up if you don't believe me.

15 hours ago, hernanday said:

I don't think so. People just misinterpreted the results for the us one, the polls were accurate nationally. People errnoeously assumed that winning popular vote = winning election. When this isn't the case. Brexit polling was very close, I recall the poll I saw the night before was within margin of error. In the US there was widespread voting suppression as well, voters being purged last minute, voters being removed from the rolls but did not know it, voted, gave honest answers but it didn't show up in the vote. The polls were not wrong in those case, people told the truth, but their votes were removed without their knowledge.

You probably don't have much background in statistics. A poll will have a margin of error that depends on the number of people surveyed. If you increase the number of people, you reduce the margin of error. Increasing the number of people by a factor of n reduces the margin of error by a factor of approximately sqrt(n). So if you have multiple polls consistently underestimating trump you can combine them and reduce the margin of error.

H10 · December 7, 2016

5 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

The numbers are online. You can look it up if you don't believe me.

You probably don't have much background in statistics. A poll will have a margin of error that depends on the number of people surveyed. If you increase the number of people, you reduce the margin of error. Increasing the number of people by a factor of n reduces the margin of error by a factor of approximately sqrt(n). So if you have multiple polls consistently underestimating trump you can combine them and reduce the margin of error.

I have a minor in stats, took it for 4 years..

The polls did not underestimate trump. And you cannot combine polls because you have no way to know if you are not double counting.

-1=e^ipi · December 7, 2016

13 minutes ago, hernanday said:

I have a minor in stats, took it for 4 years..

The polls did not underestimate trump. And you cannot combine polls because you have no way to know if you are not double counting.

They are all random samples, so of course you can combine them.

cybercoma · December 7, 2016

7 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Still waiting for you to come up with some policies.

I gave you hundreds of policies and a cataloguing of whether they've been kept or not. You narrowing it down to "during the leadership race" is a meaningless distinction. Explain why the internal leadership campaign has any relevance whatsoever.