Poilievre? Look at Mamdani

[August1991]

You came close. No cigar.

[August1991]

Mamdani speaks well too, but you lost.

Why?

[SpankyMcFarland]

Mamdani is a brilliant communicator. Making pitch perfect political videos on a daily basis isn’t as easy as it looks. There’s no doubt PP needs rebranding, though. More footage of him actively listening to the public and party members would do no harm at all. 

[Nefarious Banana]

11 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Mamdani is a brilliant communicator. Making pitch perfect political videos on a daily basis isn’t as easy as it looks. There’s no doubt PP needs rebranding, though. More footage of him actively listening to the public and party members would do no harm at all. 

Note to PP:  Leave the apple and slogans at home, read Webster's defination of 'rudeness' . . .  

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Note to PP:  Leave the apple and slogans at home, read Webster's defination of 'rudeness' . . .  

I loved the apple interview and the whole schtick. Poilievre lost because he failed to attack the carney for stealing his platform. 

[Nefarious Banana]

5 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I loved the apple interview and the whole schtick. Poilievre lost because he failed to attack the carney for stealing his platform. 

You make some good points but, his sloganism's were wearing thin with every video.  The apple interview showed a smug side of PP.  The interviewer was surely trying to bait him as that's her job, but PP showed little class in his treatment of her . . . just my opinion.  Time will tell.

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

You make some good points but, his sloganism's were wearing thin with every video.  The apple interview showed a smug side of PP.  The interviewer was surely trying to bait him as that's her job, but PP showed little class in his treatment of her . . . just my opinion.  Time will tell.

Goes to show how perceptions can differ. I find PP refreshingly confident and his ideas very sound.

Meh...

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

You make some good points but, his sloganism's were wearing thin with every video.  The apple interview showed a smug side of PP.  The interviewer was surely trying to bait him as that's her job, but PP showed little class in his treatment of her . . . just my opinion.  Time will tell.

It was a him, and Poilievre consented to his interview, then the reporter got rude. 

If that was a polite, honest reporter, just doing his level best to conduct a proper interview, then for sure, PP's behaviour would be considered rude. 

What happened there is the reporter tried to insert a bunch of snuck premises into a snotty Q & A session but he was repeatedly hoisted on his own petard. It was epic.

[August1991]

12 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Mamdani is a brilliant communicator. Making pitch perfect political videos on a daily basis isn’t as easy as it looks. There’s no doubt PP needs rebranding, though. More footage of him actively listening to the public and party members would do no harm at all. 

Mamdani and PP are both good communicators. Similar.

Here's the difference: Mamdani was running for mayor of a complicated city; Poilievre was running to be PM of a complicated country.

Mamdani cannot be a nationalist.

Poilievre should have run a campaign with a strong Canadian/Quebec whatever nationalist flag. 

 

[August1991]

Trump set-up the billiard table. 

It was Poilievre to win the game. Trudeau Snr would have won - and grinned.

We're now stuck with a bureaucrat: Carney.

[ExFlyer]

On 7/2/2025 at 1:15 PM, Nefarious Banana said:

You make some good points but, his sloganism's were wearing thin with every video.  The apple interview showed a smug side of PP.  The interviewer was surely trying to bait him as that's her job, but PP showed little class in his treatment of her . . . just my opinion.  Time will tell.

Re-print

"Poilievre lost the election. He lost his seat. Now he’s losing his grip.

On Tuesday, Damien Kurek resigned — clearing a path for Pierre Poilievre to parachute into Battle River–Crowfoot. But with his leadership under review in January and support plummeting, even his own party is getting cold feet.

Since the April 28 election, CPC support has dropped nearly 9 points. In a new Nanos poll, only 26% of Canadians think Poilievre is fit to be PM. Mark Carney more than doubles him at 50.6%.

What’s Poilievre’s plan?
Attack immigration.
Sip from an empty coffee mug.
Mock Carney and Trudeau’s hair.
And push more "Canada First" fearbait.

Sound familiar?
It should. The Trump playbook is wearing thin — and so is Pierre’s support.

Even some conservatives are backing away. Doug Ford and Tim Houston refused to campaign with him. And there’s growing chatter that Poilievre’s mean-spirited, media-hostile, anti-democratic approach has turned the CPC into a “loser brand.”

While Poilievre bans reporters from his bus, dodges questions, and calls for the defunding of public broadcasting, CBC continues to do what it’s meant to do — investigate, inform, and hold power to account.

Poilievre can insult journalists all he wants. But facts don’t flinch. 

Because this isn’t just a leadership crisis.
It’s a test of Canada’s democratic resilience."
 

Edited July 3, 2025 by ExFlyer

[August1991]

Carney is no Canadian. His wife certainly isn't.

But you are. You and your wife are Canadian.

=====

Trudeau Snr and Diefenbaker stood up for Canada.

Poilievre,

Play the nationalist card. You can.

[August1991]

Trudeau Snr?

He could have lived and retired abroad. Instead, he retired (and died) in Montreal.

[I am Groot]

On 7/2/2025 at 1:15 PM, Nefarious Banana said:

You make some good points but, his sloganism's were wearing thin with every video.  The apple interview showed a smug side of PP.  The interviewer was surely trying to bait him as that's her job, but PP showed little class in his treatment of her . . . just my opinion.  Time will tell.

It's not an interviewer's job to 'bait' an interviewee unless they're a cheap, dishonest interviewer looking to score political points against the subject.

Which pretty much describes all Canada's legacy media.

On 7/3/2025 at 12:23 AM, August1991 said:

Mamdani and PP are both good communicators. Similar.

Here's the difference:

The difference is Mamdani is running like Trudeau: "Vote ME and I'll steal a whole pile of money off those undeserving rich people and give it to YOOOOUUUU!"

That's not a platform Poilievre can run on.

[I am Groot]

On 7/3/2025 at 12:30 AM, August1991 said:

Trump set-up the billiard table. 

It was Poilievre to win the game.

Poilievre wasn't in that game. He didn't have a cue or get a turn. 

Edited July 21, 2025 by I am Groot

[August1991]

3 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

...

That's not a platform Poilievre can run on.

Groot, you miss the point.

[WestCanMan]

6 hours ago, August1991 said:

Groot, you miss the point.

Or maybe your whole theory is just wrong?

FYI PET never won an election while going against the whole legacy media. For you to believe that PP had the same opportunity to get his message across that Trudeau did is patently false. 

When you're the media darling like PET, Justa Boy or Carney, your slip-ups don't make the news, your policy positions are touted as golden, your lies are forgotten or ignored, your scandals are hush-hush, and the polls show that you have momentum. Only within two days of the election can the polls show less than a 5% edge for the golden one.

When you're the Darth Horse the media harasses you and tries to show all of your worst clips, they try to make your soundbites seem sinister, they try to get photos of you with bad people, they try to say that bad people donated to your campaign, when the opposition steals your policies they suddenly go from tragic to good, etc.

You think that everything PP did was bad because the CBC told you that. 

You think that Carney was great, and that Trump's reasons for preferring Carney were noble, because the CBC told you that. 

You don't think that Carney lied all that much because the CBC ignored all of his lies. 

If PP was the chairman of the board of a company that moved its HQ to NYC in this political climate, it would have been a bloodbath. Listen to leftards complaining about the fact that PP munched on an apple while a reporter was trying to sneak false premises into question after question, while ignoring Carney's lies about his role in moving Brookfield. 

This election was Darth Poilievre vs Mark Skywalker. CBC was George Lucas. Rosemary Barton was Obi Wan, talking to the storm troopers to get the androids past the checkpoint (talking to the voters about Carney's untruths before the election):

Barton: "These aren't the lies you're looking for."

Voters: "These aren't the lies we're looking for."

[August1991]

On 7/21/2025 at 4:41 PM, WestCanMan said:

....

FYI PET never won an election while going against the whole legacy media. For you to believe that PP had the same opportunity to get his message across that Trudeau did is patently false. 

When you're the media darling like PET, Justa Boy or Carney, your slip-ups don't make the news, your policy positions are touted as golden, your lies are forgotten or ignored, your scandals are hush-hush, and the polls show that you have momentum. Only within two days of the election can the polls show less than a 5% edge for the golden one.

....

PET won his first election in June 1968 - a majoriity, no landslide like Diefenbaker- but a true Canadian majority.

He lost in 1972, then won in 1974 - barely, because of Quebec. 

[August1991]

Mamdani, Poilievre and even Nixon don't quite understand:

Bourassa returns to power.

Like Trump

[August1991]

Across Canada, nowadays, people want a federal politician who says: this is where we must go.

=Trudeau Snr did this

=Macdonald did this

=Mulroney did this

=heck, even Pearson did this.

======

-this guy Carney is not doing this

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, August1991 said:

Across Canada, nowadays, people want a federal politician who says: this is where we must go.

=Trudeau Snr did this

=Macdonald did this

=Mulroney did this

=heck, even Pearson did this.

======

-this guy Carney is not doing this

What are you talking about? He's talking about our new economic reality. He doesn't have a lot of Rosy answers, but he is doing this. 

I'm not defending his vision, or anything else about him but your critique... seems off. 

And he's marginalizing Poilievre again by making friends with Doug Ford. 

Doug Ford wants to be PM

 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/article/hes-very-humble-ford-says-carney-stayed-at-his-muskoka-cottage-on-monday-night/

Edited July 24, 2025 by Michael Hardner

[Shady]

On 6/30/2025 at 11:23 PM, August1991 said:

Mamdani speaks well too, but you lost.

Why?

Because Trump irrationally frightened boomers.  60+ was the only age demographic that voted for Carney.

[PIK]

On 7/2/2025 at 1:15 PM, Nefarious Banana said:

You make some good points but, his sloganism's were wearing thin with every video.  The apple interview showed a smug side of PP.  The interviewer was surely trying to bait him as that's her job, but PP showed little class in his treatment of her . . . just my opinion.  Time will tell.

Yet libs are smug 24/7 365 days a year. And PP eats a apple and made a reporter look stupid,and he gets branded. LOL

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 7/3/2025 at 1:53 AM, August1991 said:

Mamdani and PP are both good communicators. Similar.

Here's the difference: Mamdani was running for mayor of a complicated city; Poilievre was running to be PM of a complicated country.

Forget about whether you agree with the platforms. Here is the difference. Poilievre was the frontrunner, ahead on everything including money and he managed to lose. Mamdani was nowhere when he started and was subjected to a massive multimillion dollar hate campaign by Cuomo’s backers. And he won. It wasn’t close. If you know Mira Nair’s work you won’t be surprised by that. Political comparisons of this sort are never fully fair but the contrast in outcomes is stark. 

Edited July 26, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[August1991]

On 7/24/2025 at 7:37 AM, Michael Hardner said:

What are you talking about? He's talking about our new economic reality. He doesn't have a lot of Rosy answers, but he is doing this. 

I'm not defending his vision, or anything else about him but your critique... seems off. 

And he's marginalizing Poilievre again by making friends with Doug Ford. 

Doug Ford wants to be PM

....

Doug Ford at least seems to have a direction.

Carney? He's no Blair - let alone a Thatcher.