2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

[QV]

Re: the people he's bringing into the party
“There’s people that signed up for us that are anti-COVID mandates? Yeah, I think that’s safe to say,” said another Poilievre campaign source, who agreed to discuss strategy on the condition they not be named.

“It’s not the only issue, but it definitely is an issue that (has) galvanized across party lines, moreso than any issue I’ve ever seen. There’s a reason why, you know, NDP supporters in Timmins (Ontario) are coming to a Pierre Poilievre rally and signing up to be Conservative Party of Canada members.”

‘This will be Pierre Poilievre’s party’: Conservatives reckon with a new direction - National | Globalnews.ca

Multiple sources tell Global News the Poilievre campaign has drawn in a significant number of new members that haven’t participated in party politics before.

globalnews.ca

We know that Bernier added ~500k votes between 2019 and 2021, primarily campaigning on pushback against vaccination and mandates
We know that ten's or even hundreds of thousands Canadians supported the Convoy, many of them financially
We know the PP's social media game and outreach to that same cohort is incredibly strong.

Put those three together, and I think it's very premature to assume the (quite significant) support he's garnered is a representative sampling of an actual grassroots shift in Canadian thinking rather than an excellent capture rate of a motivated, relatively small, previously identified voting bloc.

Gross government overreach of individual freedoms tends to galvanize people who would otherwise be politically opposed. For example, the average "anti-vaxxer", the derogatory term for those opposed to mandates, was left leaning and female.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Gross government overreach of individual freedoms tends to galvanize people who would otherwise be politically opposed. For example, the average "anti-vaxxer", the derogatory term for those opposed to mandates, was left leaning and female.

Quite- when it comes to the issue of "freedom" the political spectrum is very much a circle.

That being said, the point stands. Skillful use of twitter to recruit a previously identified single issue voters on said single issue isn't indicative of a population wide movement, a grassroots shift, or a sustainable political strategy.

 

[QV]

Very much doubt these are "single issue voters"... .

Only the folks that are vehemently against PP will keep ignoring that PP's fundraising has surpassed in the first quarter what even Peter McKay achieved in his entire leadership race... this is quite significant.

If this were Trudeau's numbers, you wouldn't stop hearing all about Trudeaumania 2.0.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Very much doubt these are "single issue voters"... .

Only the folks that are vehemently against PP will keep ignoring that PP's fundraising has surpassed in the first quarter what even Peter McKay achieved in his entire leadership race... this is quite significant.

If this were Trudeau's numbers, you wouldn't stop hearing all about Trudeaumania 2.0.

His fundraising work is impressive by Canadian standards, but it's still only 37k people donating to his campaign, which is a statistically insignificant portion of Canadian voters.

At the end of the day, voter turnout and distribution is what wins seats and forms governments. Unless the CPC makes significant in roads in ON/QC, they'll remain primarily a regional party making up the official opposition.

There are some pretty clear red line issues for voters like abortion; Steven Harper very effectively stomped that down within the CPC so was able to pick up seats in ON etc while maintaining support out west. Scheer waffled on it and was soundly rejected; O'Toole tried to pander to some so-cons which damaged his credibility when the video was leaked and similarly got rejected.

PP has been pretty clear that he's personnally pro-choice, but the party position is still pretty unclear. Unless they draw a line in the sand (ie it's a medical procedure and not any of the GoC's business) officially as a party they will keep having people vote against them out of fear for erosion of existing rights.

I think particularly with Roe vs Wade being overturned in the US, this will continue to be a genuine wedge issue that will drive votes away from parties.

Still don't get the mental gymnastics of people who are against vaccine mandates but also want to restrict abortions; bodily autonomy, and freedom of personal choice shouldn't have qualifiers, and if you are against government over reach that should also extend to things like abortion, restricting gay marriage etc.

 

[QV]

His fundraising work is impressive by Canadian standards, but it's still only 37k people donating to his campaign, which is a statistically insignificant portion of Canadian voters. I suppose those donating to Charest make for even less statistical significance by several orders of magnitude then.

At the end of the day, voter turnout and distribution is what wins seats and forms governments. Unless the CPC makes significant in roads in ON/QC, they'll remain primarily a regional party making up the official opposition.

There are some pretty clear red line issues for voters like abortion; Steven Harper very effectively stomped that down within the CPC so was able to pick up seats in ON etc while maintaining support out west. Scheer waffled on it and was soundly rejected; O'Toole tried to pander to some so-cons which damaged his credibility when the video was leaked and similarly got rejected.

PP has been pretty clear that he's personnally pro-choice, but the party position is still pretty unclear. Unless they draw a line in the sand (ie it's a medical procedure and not any of the GoC's business) officially as a party they will keep having people vote against them out of fear for erosion of existing rights. That is funny. I only know of one party that froze personal bank accounts and is aiming to censor the internet, to name just a couple...

I think particularly with Roe vs Wade being overturned in the US, this will continue to be a genuine wedge issue that will drive votes away from parties. Yes, the media and the ABC crowd will make a lot of noise about this nothing burger.

Still don't get the mental gymnastics of people who are against vaccine mandates but also want to restrict abortions; bodily autonomy, and freedom of personal choice shouldn't have qualifiers, and if you are against government over reach that should also extend to things like abortion, restricting gay marriage etc. That sentiment goes both ways for those supporting vaccine mandates but are also pro-choice. There are some fundamental differences between forcing vaccines that don't actually inoculate you from the virus... and having reasonable limitations on abortions because at some point before birth it is actually a child and not just a clump of cells. You cannot compare these topics.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Still don't get the mental gymnastics of people who are against vaccine mandates but also want to restrict abortions; bodily autonomy, and freedom of personal choice shouldn't have qualifiers, and if you are against government over reach that should also extend to things like abortion, restricting gay marriage etc.

Just as I don't understand the mental gymnastics of people who are for vaccine mandates but are all of a sudden my body my choice when it comes to abortion (and there is a substantial amount of people in Canada with that mindset).

Or the mindset of say Quebecs government where its ok to ban religious symbols on government workers but also ok to have a giant cross up in Quebec Parliament.

The reality is many people are hypocrites. If you were able to have a rational conversation with most you would find most issues are ruled by emotion rather than logic no matter how much evidence you can show to the contrary.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A vaccine involves one person; to some people, an abortion involves two people.

 

[Dana381]

A vaccine involves one person; to some people, an abortion involves two people.

Abortions involve three people, it takes two to make a baby.

 

[IKnowNothing]

@QV " I suppose those donating to Charest make for even less statistical significance by several orders of magnitude then."

Exactly, that's the point.
Neither are of much significance when trying to extrapolate some sort of grand notion of shifting voter intention.
900k+ people voted PPC or Maverick, these are people with whom PP's message would resonate
300k+ plus people purchased memberships
110k+ plus people financially supported the convoy in Feb

That 37k (a small subset of the subsets above) were willing to tick the box and toss his campaign some money is not significant new information, or reason to believe that his message is resonating throughout the electorate in a more meaningful way than polls are suggesting.

We know PP has an awesome social media game. We know he has the ability to mobilize his base. We know that there is a portion of the population with which his message resonates strongly. He's the first of his kind in the modern age of Canadian politics. Further evidence of all of the above is not reason to infer what you're putting forward in posts 1273/ 1276.

There are reasons- the NDP polling shift, drawing in the types who last voted in 2015 to legalize dope (words of someone in the campaign), but do those reasons have staying power to a general election? If they are seemingly "left-wing libertarians" what does their inclusion do to internal party dynamics?

 

[Navy_Pete]

Just as I don't understand the mental gymnastics of people who are for vaccine mandates but are all of a sudden my body my choice when it comes to abortion (and there is a substantial amount of people in Canada with that mindset).

Or the mindset of say Quebecs government where its ok to ban religious symbols on government workers but also ok to have a giant cross up in Quebec Parliament.

The reality is many people are hypocrites. If you were able to have a rational conversation with most you would find most issues are ruled by emotion rather than logic no matter how much evidence you can show to the contrary.

Vaccine mandates are restrictions on people who aren't vaccinated, vice forced vaccinations, so not at all the same as forcing a woman (or a child) to go give birth (or alternately forced sterilizations).

Functional societies require limits on individual rights for the greater good; people will argue about COVID, but generally slowing/stopping the spread of a severe illness has been common practice for millennia. But now we have modern things like effective vaccines so we don't have to burn plague cities to the ground anymore.

In that line of thought it's still logical to be okay with vaccine mandates (which were in place prior to COVID anyway, just more low key) and be pro choice. No one is forcing anyone to get vaccinated, but there are consequences/restrictions if someone chooses to not get vaccinated for COVID. Similarly, being pro-choice means it's up to the mother to decide if she wants to give birth or have an abortion, and consequences either way for the decision.

As an aside, QC finally removed the cross in the legislative assembly in 2019. It was a weird debate to see people that considered themselves non-religious argue it was part of the heritage. I can get appreciating places of worship for their architecture/artisanry/craftsmanship without being a believer, but an obvious symbol like a crucifix was fairly obviously secular with no inherent artistry.

 

[FSTO]

Pierre Poilievre Meet and Greet – Regina SK 03 Aug 2022

The meeting was held in a hotel conference room and there was a standing room only crowd of about 450 to 500. The crowd was overwhelmingly uniform in skin tone but there were a smattering of south Asian and middle eastern representatives as well. This would be typical for a conservative party get together in Regina. I arrived fairly early to get a seat and the crowd then was a vast majority of over 60 but as the people rolled in the average age reduced to about 45-50. Again, typical for Regina.

Local Conservative MP’s and Sask Party MLA’s were there but no press was allowed (as far as I could see). Andrew Scheer (AS) introduced Pierre Poilievre (PP) to the crowd. The cheering wasn’t over the top by any means which didn’t surprise me (Sask people are not emotional unless it’s about the Roughriders). PP gave a pretty typical boiler plate speech and there was nothing in it that I hadn’t heard before. He is polished, jovial, and quick with the jabs.

Highlights:

• Only mentioned running for PM twice, most of the time he’s say he was vying for the leadership of the conservative party.
• Took a couple of swipes at Charest (didn’t mention any of the other candidates at all), each time calling him the “Liberal Premier of Quebec”
• A few themes of “Freedom” that focused on freedom to choose the life to lead, freedom for the west to grow without Ottawa roadblocks (my words). Mentioned soldiers died for our freedoms (I wish politicians would stop using the military as an election prop.)
• Swipe at PM JT for going to Costa Rica on a gas guzzling jet (I wish I could have asked him if he’d authorize the purchase of new, energy efficient jets)
• Repeal Bill C-69 and build more pipelines to get our energy to Asia and Europe (I support this but it’ll be too late, I hope (War in Ukraine over) to get a line to our eastern tidewater)
• Strong support for more Nuclear produced Energy
• Liberals attack our farmers (fertilizer reduction use, which is wrong, its emissions but it’s not like farmers are using more fertilizer than required) and our resource industries
• Mentioned the “Pay as you go Government”. I still have no idea how that will work
• Gun control – Liberals focus on people who follow the rules and ignore people who don’t (gangs and smugglers)
• Freedom of Speech Restored (big cheer)
• Gatekeepers at CBC/CRTC. He said CBC focuses too much on the United States and not enough on Canada (I really agree with that statement)
• Repeal C-11
• Mentioned his adoption and that you shouldn’t get ahead by “Who you know, but by what you can do” (cheer)
• Used a Freedom vs Control Analogy – Liberals espouse their Freedom by controlling people, PP wants people to be free to do what they want – within the limits of personal responsibility
• Ended his speech with a quote from John Diefenbaker (always plays well in Saskatchewan) and his bill of rights.

Question and Answer Period:

• A farce, Scheer had questions “sent’ to him via SM and were obviously vetted, if not outright drafted by PP’s team
• Questions were about:
• Bank of Canada – Printing Money
• Arrive Can App – scrap
• Convoy – PP still supports the idea of the convoy and not the folks who broke the law (personal responsibility)
• Jean Charest time as Québec Premier – full of scandal
• Reforming the tax system
• Improving the lives of FN
• Cutting the bureaucracy from Ottawa
• Allow freedom from the Indian Act
• Support pro development FN
• Scrap the CBC – Huge Cheer from the crowd. (I observed that both Scheer and PP had big smirks on their faces, which to me means that that promise has the same intention of being kept as the JT’s promise of the “last first past the post election in 2015)

Overall impression:

PP is defiantly the front runner and he is starting to massage his message to broaden his appeal. He said he’s won consecutive elections in a Liberal heavy region, he directly mentioned helping FN, and he mentioned non-Christian Canadians having freedom to live as they wish.

I was hoping that my daughter the socialist would have joined me because she would likely have pointed out the dog whistles that I would be blind to but PP is still too toxic in her mind to be listened to.

I’m still very skeptical that he’ll be able to implement many of his initiatives if he becomes PM. But he is committed to what he believes and if he gets to become Prime Minister expect a raucous time in the HoC and A LOT of fights with the Public Service.

 

[QV]

Very nice summary FSTO.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Just as I don't understand the mental gymnastics of people who are for vaccine mandates but are all of a sudden my body my choice when it comes to abortion (and there is a substantial amount of people in Canada with that mindset).

Or the mindset of say Quebecs government where its ok to ban religious symbols on government workers but also ok to have a giant cross up in Quebec Parliament.

The reality is many people are hypocrites. If you were able to have a rational conversation with most you would find most issues are ruled by emotion rather than logic no matter how much evidence you can show to the contrary.

Deep down I suspect the majority of Canadians are opposed to late abortions and most people would believe the fetus is a human being in the later stages, so it's really not that hard to understand. The only hard part is figuring out when that shift from fetus to baby takes place, both developmentally and where it would legally. The Progressive know that's the unspoken opinion and fear to much discussion will uncork the bottle. The end result would not please the hardliners on either side of the debate.

 

[mariomike]

Vaccine mandates are restrictions on people who aren't vaccinated, vice forced vaccinations, so not at all the same as forcing a woman (or a child) to go give birth (or alternately forced sterilizations).

Functional societies require limits on individual rights for the greater good; people will argue about COVID, but generally slowing/stopping the spread of a severe illness has been common practice for millennia. But now we have modern things like effective vaccines so we don't have to burn plague cities to the ground anymore.

In that line of thought it's still logical to be okay with vaccine mandates (which were in place prior to COVID anyway, just more low key) and be pro choice. No one is forcing anyone to get vaccinated, but there are consequences/restrictions if someone chooses to not get vaccinated for COVID. Similarly, being pro-choice means it's up to the mother to decide if she wants to give birth or have an abortion, and consequences either way for the decision.

there are consequences/restrictions if someone chooses to not get vaccinated for COVID

From what I understand, anyone who wants to work on a film set must be at least triple-vaxxed, and double-masked ( even the crew ) when not in front of a camera.

As far as the science goes, some do their online research, and some are influenced by their favorite media and political personalities.

Others simply follow their employer mandates, and local Health Dept. guidelines.

As far as abortion goes, I believe if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

If Canadian political parties want to go there,

In the Sixties, abortion could be legally performed only to save the life of the woman, so there were practically no legal abortions. He stated that the pregnant daughters of the rich were sent to reliable physicians who did abortions for cash. He estimated that these physicians did twenty to thirty abortions per week. Women who were not rich were left to perform an abortion on themselves or go to what he called a "nurse" abortionist. Their method was commonly pumping Lysol into the woman's womb. The mortality rate was high and the infection rate over 50%. He added, "By the time I became Chief Coroner, I had had the unpleasant experience of seeing the bodies of some dozens of young women who had died as a result of these amateur abortions."

Chief Coroner Morton Shulman decided to publicize deaths from illegal abortions. He instructed his coroners to call a public inquest into each abortion death. He describes one case that he believes was the turning point, that of 34-year-old Lottie Leanne Clarke, a mother of three children, who died of a massive infection in 1964 after an illegal abortion in spite of medical treatment and antibiotics. At the inquest into her death, the jury recommended that the laws about therapeutic abortion be revised. Dr. Shulman added that a federal government committee should review the question of abortion and the law. Newspapers published editorials recommending the reform of the abortion law. In 1965, the Minister of Justice, Guy Favreau, wrote to Dr. Shulman that the recommendation would be considered in the program to amend the Criminal Code. The eventual amendment closely followed the recommendations of the coroners' juries.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... I was hoping that my daughter the socialist would have joined me because she would likely have pointed out the dog whistles that I would be blind to but PP is still too toxic in her mind to be listened to ...

That's too bad - gotta know (and understand) what the other side is saying to deal with it. Thanks TONS for the granular summary - much appreciated!

 

[IKnowNothing]

If we're going to dive into abortion
A- late term abortions are almost always health related decisions, and are almost always traumatic. We're talking about babies for which showers have been held, nurseries decorated, names given. The casual late term abortion is a myth.

B- the Catholic Church won't baptize a stillborn baby, nor will they baptize a fetus. No consistency, no moral authority.

C- The Southern Baptist Convention largely viewed abortion as distasteful but ultimately something between a woman, a doctor, and God- not something the state should be involved in at all. That is, until a bunch of Southern racists at risk of having to choose between desegregating their private cash cows schools or losing their tax exemption came up with a brilliant idea to mobilize their base.

Edit, history of the position of the Southern Baptist convention on abortion. Note those dates relative to R vs W. Note that Jerry Falwell didn't preach an anti-abortion Sermon until 1978

Southern Baptist Convention Resolutions on Abortion

Solid piece of reading

The Religious Right and the Abortion Myth

White evangelicals in the 1970s didn’t initially care about abortion. They organized to defend racial segregation in evangelical institutions — and only seized on banning abortion because it was more palatable than their real goal.

www.politico.com

Multiple generations of well meaning people have been had.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Abortions involve three people, it takes two to make a baby.

Men have been read out of the matter. Maybe that should change, but until it does, "two".

 

[QV]

@QV " I suppose those donating to Charest make for even less statistical significance by several orders of magnitude then."

Exactly, that's the point.
Neither are of much significance when trying to extrapolate some sort of grand notion of shifting voter intention.
900k+ people voted PPC or Maverick, these are people with whom PP's message would resonate
300k+ plus people purchased memberships
110k+ plus people financially supported the convoy in Feb

That 37k (a small subset of the subsets above) were willing to tick the box and toss his campaign some money is not significant new information, or reason to believe that his message is resonating throughout the electorate in a more meaningful way than polls are suggesting.

We know PP has an awesome social media game. We know he has the ability to mobilize his base. We know that there is a portion of the population with which his message resonates strongly. He's the first of his kind in the modern age of Canadian politics. Further evidence of all of the above is not reason to infer what you're putting forward in posts 1273/ 1276.

There are reasons- the NDP polling shift, drawing in the types who last voted in 2015 to legalize dope (words of someone in the campaign), but do those reasons have staying power to a general election? If they are seemingly "left-wing libertarians" what does their inclusion do to internal party dynamics?

The bottom line is PP is doing far better than any other candidate, even far better than past candidates who were very popular (McKay). That is significant and it does mean something. And that is my point.

Recall, it wasn't too long ago the prevailing opinion on PP was that he is just a right wing mouth piece who doesn't stand a chance. Wrong, at the moment he stands the best chance.

 

[Remius]

The bottom line is PP is doing far better than any other candidate, even far better than past candidates who were very popular (McKay). That is significant and it does mean something. And that is my point.

Recall, it wasn't too long ago the prevailing opinion on PP was that he is just a right wing mouth piece who doesn't stand a chance. Wrong, at the moment he stands the best chance.

Who said that? So far everyone here has said he is likely the guy to win the leadership. That has been the consistant prevailing opinion here. As to liking him or if he’s the best thing for the party is another issue. Winning the general election is another thing but I agree he should not be underestimated.

 

[Good2Golf]

Who said that? So far everyone here has said he is likely the guy to win the leadership. That has been the consistant prevailing opinion here. As to liking him or if he’s the best thing for the party is another issue. Winning the general election is another thing but I agree he should not be underestimated.

And the issue remains about improving CPC vote efficiency. Maybe PP can improve on the CPC results of the past, time will tell. As pragmatic conservative-minded folks here have pointed out numerous times, a full sweep of heavy-% home runs in AB/SK does not an election win…