Admiral Beez
Superstar
Yes, but that applies to both genders. The cost of housing can't be why our young men are swinging right.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Richard White
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
Certainly not exclusively.
However, while people of both sexes and all education levels are facing challenges, these challenges are more acute for those lacking university education.
When we look at enrollment in Canadian universities, by sex.........we see a pronounced skew:
Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics...condary-students-in-canada-by-age-and-gender/
Roughly 55% to 45%
That's an important first part of the equation, because we see the skew to the right is very much linked to education level.
****
Another important factor is social media. Its propensity for echo-chamber feeds tends to reinforce pre-existing views/leanings. So if more men view Joe Rogan, and you report as male, Rogan is more likely to come up in your feed.
Women don't tend to view Andrew Tate or Joe Rogan as much, they get different reinforcement in their social streams.
thettctransitfanatic
Senior Member
Although I didn't fully watch the French debate tonight, I watched enough of it to get a sense of what happened, using translations through the dubbed English version. I would say the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, Yves Francois Blanchet, won the debate overall and especially in terms who best spoke French, but he came across as quite aggressive at times. Pierre Poilievre did decently, but, his physical mannerisms and some of his comments will be a turn off to some, in particular, women voters. His French isn't as great as many hyped him up to be. Mark Carney's French was not good, and you could tell he intentionally tried to speak as little as possible at the debate, but you can tell it has improved a bit in the time since the Liberal leadership debate in February, and although all the other party leaders tried to throw a whole lot of stuff at him, no one was able to land a knock out blow on him, so you could argue it was a bit of a moral victory for him.... Jagmeet Singh was the clear loser of the debate, at one point, he tried to interrupt the moderate quite rudely in attempt to talk about healthcare, when the subject was about Canadian/Quebec identity. He also kept trying to just talk about healthcare when other subjects were being discussed, which made him come across as a bit confused, clumsy and not keeping up with the crowd.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
^The one who is trying to improve would be the winner for me.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
My hope is this is the moment the NDP go the way of the British Liberal party. In the FPTP setup, a two party system can best reflect the will of the people.
evandyk
Senior Member
In FPTP, a two party system drives polarization, because capturing the party means capturing the government. You capture the party by moving to the extreme. In a three party (or more) system, if you capture the party by being extreme (see Erin O'Toole), you will lose the general election.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Even if that were true - that is, the NDP and the Greens would disappear over night - the BQ will likely never go away…defeating any prospect of a two party state. Plus it would never be in our best interests for that to happen.
adma
Superstar
I presume you're talking about the UK Liberals in their post-WWII super-rump status (i.e. when Tory & Labour combined could get over ***95%*** of the vote). However, I'd argue that the Libs/Lib Dems have had a *very* interesting afterlife, if often rocky and never really in contention for prime ministerial power (and the closest they came, in the 2010 Cameron/Clegg accord, was a near-disaster--yet they've come back from *that* by feasting off disgraced Tory entrails; and they've also forever been a quirky gadfly force on municipal councils). And I prefer that "interesting afterlife" state of affairs to the super-rump status quo of the 1950s...
thettctransitfanatic
Senior Member
My thoughts on the English debate:
-Mark Carney largely weathered the storm. He was attacked on all fronts from everyone, and many people thought he was gonna do absolutely horrible in the debate. He held his own in my view, but some of his answers, he flubbed, especially when he said that China is Canada number 1 threat and when he was trying to defend his work at Brookfield Management. He looked very Prime Ministeral and calm and composed, most adult on stage. He also had a couple of moments where he was humorous. But overall, I think held his own.
-Pierre Poilievre's performance was rather predictable, and was largely what you would expect. Very much just repeating the same talking points over and over, and often just trying to link Carney to Trudeau, and acting like Trudeau was on the stage. He did however some strong moments on crime issues and also on cost of living issues as well. Ultimately though, he didn't land a knockout punch, though he did come close.
-Jagmeet Singh I feel, was trying to be forceful and be the guy to hold the main party leaders accountable. But you could tell he was kinda trying to make the case for a minority government. He was often arguing over Pierre Poilievre and Mark Carney which came across as rude. He was the clear loser of the debate in my opinion
-Yves Francois Blanchet I think was quite clearly a deer in the headlights and was essentially just begging everyone to talk about Quebec issues and was quite out of sync, though he was able to get some good attacks in on Carney.
-Mark Carney largely weathered the storm. He was attacked on all fronts from everyone, and many people thought he was gonna do absolutely horrible in the debate. He held his own in my view, but some of his answers, he flubbed, especially when he said that China is Canada number 1 threat and when he was trying to defend his work at Brookfield Management. He looked very Prime Ministeral and calm and composed, most adult on stage. He also had a couple of moments where he was humorous. But overall, I think held his own.
-Pierre Poilievre's performance was rather predictable, and was largely what you would expect. Very much just repeating the same talking points over and over, and often just trying to link Carney to Trudeau, and acting like Trudeau was on the stage. He did however some strong moments on crime issues and also on cost of living issues as well. Ultimately though, he didn't land a knockout punch, though he did come close.
-Jagmeet Singh I feel, was trying to be forceful and be the guy to hold the main party leaders accountable. But you could tell he was kinda trying to make the case for a minority government. He was often arguing over Pierre Poilievre and Mark Carney which came across as rude. He was the clear loser of the debate in my opinion
-Yves Francois Blanchet I think was quite clearly a deer in the headlights and was essentially just begging everyone to talk about Quebec issues and was quite out of sync, though he was able to get some good attacks in on Carney.
Last edited:
Richard White
Senior Member
Paragraphs....
thettctransitfanatic
Senior Member
Fixed it.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
I am not sure what someone with an intellectual deficit like PP is expecting for a “knockout punch”, unless it completely appeases anti-intellectuals…
…which would be really bad for the rest of us. Because we know that worked for Trump. /bleh
…which would be really bad for the rest of us. Because we know that worked for Trump. /bleh
thettctransitfanatic
Senior Member
What I am saying is that PP and really all the opposition leaders needed some sort of moment that stuck with people and stuck to Carney as a negative. There were moments in the debate where yes, Carney looked evavise in his answers, but because the opposition leaders were unable to land a case or make a case against him as forcefully as we have seen in past debates, not much will change, IMO. Maybe you'll see some small changes polling wise but it just feels like more people are talking about Rebel News and the whole controversy surrounding the post debate scrum being cancelled tonight and the mess that was Wednesday night's scrum, then much of the actual debate itself.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Fair enough…
….but I guess that my anxiety of how this election will go south like what happened with last US elections cloud my opinions here. And I don’t think that’s helpful. Rather as an astute friend pointed out to not put too much stake into the debates as they are unlikely to sway how the election will turn out. And you have pointed out that’s pretty much what’s happening here. Thank you for that. /bows
Richard White
Senior Member
I'm not so sure.
My cousin is a devoted conservative but she was dismayed by PP after the debate.
She wanted something more than liberal bashing from the CPC and she didn't get much of it. She sees Trump as a threat to Canada and would rather vote Liberal if Mark Carney is the better person to handle him.
I'm the same way. I normally vote NDP but I'm a proud Canadian and am voting Liberal because I see Mark Carney as the best person to stand up to Trump.
We have a threat to Canada from the Oompa Loompa down south. Now is not the time for infighting, now is the time to protect Canada.
You may find some CPC and NDP supporters voting Liberal given the current situation