Canadian Federal Election

[BlackDog204]

"Has your opinion of (X) improved, stayed the same, worsened since the start of the campaign?"

(Improved // Stayed The Same // Worsened)

Carney: 36% // 37% // 22%
Poilievre: 22% // 38% // 35%
Singh: 12% // 51% // 30%
Blanchet (QC): 13% // 55% // 21%

"I am comfortable with (X) being in charge of Canada's economy"

Carney:
Agree: 60%
Disagree: 31%

Poilievre:
Agree: 46%
Disagree: 45%

Best Prime Minister Polling:

Carney: 43%
Poilievre: 29%
Singh: 9%
Blanchet: 4%
Bernier: 2%
Pedneault: 1%

Net Approvals:

Carney: +26%

Poilievre: -3%
Singh: -7%
Blanchet (QC): -11%
Pedneault: -17%
Bernier: -30%

Research Co. / April 6, 2025 / n=956 / Online

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Acajack

So what? I am not allowed to make more than one post on the same topic? Seriously?

If you want to not go through this again, I'd suggest posting the link and a quote from the story in the same post instead of dribbling it out over three or four posts. Helps avoid confusion and the subsequent anger like this.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by Acajack

So what? I am not allowed to make more than one post on the same topic? Seriously?

You made a bold claim with no context, no source. You posted the link later when someone else asked you for it, which many people here have obviously missed. This would have all been prevented if you included your link in your original post regarding the matter. I'm not sure why that's difficult for you to understand.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Acajack

So what? I am not allowed to make more than one post on the same topic? Seriously?

He's merely suggesting you include a source, a link to the article for what you're discussing. You're quite high strung today, man.

[38 Geary]

This is taken from the CE guidelines since this thread is basically the CE. You aren't required to follow it, but don't be surprised if you get push back on your posts if you don't provide links to sources backing up your claims, so that others can read and formulate their own opinions rather than taking your statements as fact.

Debating in good faith is important to maintaining a civilized environment on the forum. It's best to cite examples for your argument instead of merely making a claim on something, even if true. This way, no one will be able to refute what you say as being dishonest or hearsay.

[FrankieFlowerpot]

Bragging about the size of a CPC rally? In Alberta? Is that all he has?

https://bsky.app/profile/ctheriault.bsky.social/post/3lmcsynxwps2j

[niwell]

Originally Posted by casper

I think we are. I was in Australia a few months ago, and my impression is they are on the same path as us. The wording if different, but the Australians also do land acknowledgments as well.

I just spent a month in Australia (combo holiday and family visits) - if anything land acknowledgments are much more frequent than here and have been going on for a longer period of time. They've also been renaming things for a few decades now.

As an aside it was very interesting to hear from people there about the current climate - the issues our respective countries are facing seem to share an only slightly oblong Venn Diagram (with some nuances around the edges of course). A surprising awareness of what's going on in Canadian politics too, having been asked my opinions of Carney vs Pierre on numerous occasions. Apparently one of the local streaming services even plays CBC news in the morning. It's not exactly the land of Milk and Honey some have described on SSP Canada in recent times, though the climate makes up for a fair bit if you don't have any attachments to other places in the world.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by FrankieFlowerpot

Bragging about the size of a CPC rally? In Alberta? Is that all he has?

https://bsky.app/profile/ctheriault.bsky.social/post/3lmcsynxwps2j

He doesn't get it yet does he? Reminds me of Romney:

"Romney and his campaign had gone into the evening confident they had a good path to victory, for emotional and intellectual reasons. The huge and enthusiastic crowds in swing state after swing state in recent weeks - not only for Romney but also for Paul Ryan - bolstered what they believed intellectually: that Obama would not get the kind of turnout he had in 2008.

They thought intensity and enthusiasm were on their side this time - poll after poll showed Republicans were more motivated to vote than Democrats - and that would translate into votes for Romney.

As a result, they believed the public/media polls were skewed - they thought those polls oversampled Democrats and didn't reflect Republican enthusiasm. They based their own internal polls on turnout levels more favorable to Romney. That was a grave miscalculation, as they would see on election night."

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by FrankieFlowerpot

Bragging about the size of a CPC rally? In Alberta? Is that all he has?

https://bsky.app/profile/ctheriault.bsky.social/post/3lmcsynxwps2j

I'm glad I am not the only one who picked up on that. I also noticed that Conservative pundits could not get their ducks in order, when bragging about the crowd size, as a couple were reporting "12,000 people" and others "15,000."

I fail to understand why some CPC accounts are comparing attendance of Poilievre's rallies to Carney's rallies. I do not recall any politician making this a big deal, until Trump and MAGA began doing it in 2016. It's one of the most insignificant things imaginable, and it reeks of desperation.

In addition to that, why are they in Edmonton, of all places, especially considering they are getting killed everywhere east of Manitoba, and Lower Mainland BC? It makes no sense to campaign in the heart of Alberta, when it's seemingly their base. Unless of course, their internal polling knows something we do not...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by FrankieFlowerpot

Bragging about the size of a CPC rally? In Alberta? Is that all he has?

https://bsky.app/profile/ctheriault.bsky.social/post/3lmcsynxwps2j

I thought the idea would be to distance himself from Trump style talking points?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

I'm glad I am not the only one who picked up on that. I also noticed that Conservative pundits could not get their ducks in order, when bragging about the crowd size, as a couple were reporting "12,000 people" and others "15,000."

I fail to understand why some CPC accounts are comparing attendance of Poilievre's rallies to Carney's rallies. I do not recall any politician making this a big deal, until Trump and MAGA began doing it in 2016. It's one of the most insignificant things imaginable, and it reeks of desperation.

Who could ever forget that (and Sean Spicer's utterances to the contrary..."PERIOD!!")

Spicer boasted that it was "the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe." That combative posture set the tone for his relationship with the press, and Spicer said he regrets it.

"If you ask me for one thing that I probably want a do-over on, that's it. There was nobody happy with me that night," Spicer recalled.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/18/630232720...she-understands-what-the-president-wants

for giggles: https://media0.giphy.com/media/26gs9MAbSIh04J0Na/giphy.gif

[niwell]

It doesn't particularly surprise me that Pierre would have bigger rallies / a base that is more energized than that of Carney. Problem is that diehard base has a very hard cap. While it's hard to cite historical trends in this day and age the so-called "mushy middle" still seems to play a major role in Canada and they don't have to be 100% enthused in a candidate to vote for them.

Anecdotally I'm in Napanee to do some Spring maintenance on our place for the first time since the election has been called. The number of political signs out compared to the previous election (or Provincial election) are very minimal, with a roughly equal split between CPC and LPC. Maybe a bit more on the former. However the people who have Conservative signs seem to go all out with big displays - our neighbour even rigged up a backlighting system so you can see the big sign on his frontyard illuminated at night.

[elly63]

What's the deal with Carney repeating phrases directly after saying it. I think he intends it for emphasis but it sounds corny.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The size of rallies and the number of signs are just about the worst barometers to gauge who is going to win.

Trump for example had generally quite large rallies in 2016, 2020 and 2024. He lost once and won twice.

Yes and in two cases lost the popular vote. Meanwhile even Harris level support is enough for the Liberals to win the most seats and decisively so. (I don't mean 48 % but losing by 1.5% popular vote)

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I thought the idea would be to distance himself from Trump style talking points?

You would think. Splicing this together with Trump berating journalists and talking about rallies would be a devastating ad.

[elly63]

• Video Link

[Marshsparrow]

On rally size... Pierre's exchange with the Globe's Laura Stone is absolutely pathetic - he asks her the questions. He's such a douche.

[JakeLRS]

Originally Posted by elly63

What's the deal with Carney repeating phrases directly after saying it. I think he intends it for emphasis but it sounds corny.

I mean I think that's just the way he talks. A lil narly for sure, but can't change it.

[JakeLRS]

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

On rally size... Pierre's exchange with the Globe's Laura Stone is absolutely pathetic - he asks her the questions. He's such a douche.

I will admit, Poilievre's response to a journalist question today on crowd sizes was... pathetic. I can understand his excitement, but he needs to be professional.



I was at the rally in Edmonton yesterday.

CPC-Rally-Apr7-2025 by freerealms454, on Flickr

Some takeaways

- Lots of people, the estimates of 15,000 are fairly accurate. They unfortunately didn't move the bleacher seats far enough back as there were lots of people who were behind them.

- Poilievre talked a lot about his policies. When rewatching his previous rally, there wasn't a big change in what he mentioned, except for emphasizing Oil and Gas policies (killing c-69).

- There were tons of young voters (gen-z). This shouldn't be a huge surprise, especially since Poilievre has been effective in getting his message out on housing and affordability for the past two years and having a message that resonates with gen-z'rs (like myself).

- I overheard some undecided voters showing up with friends/family. They were curious about the movement so they joined in.

- Some people left the rally early, likely because standing for hours on in is... tiring, also the parking situation isn't... ideal.

- Definitely quite a few hardcore conservatives at the rally. Felt bad for the CPC girl. If I wasn't camera shy, I would've done a fair and honest interview with them.

Now, I'm not going to say crowd size matters, especially in a conservative stronghold such as Alberta. I think the campaign stop was a tactical stop to maintain and potentially grow momentum during the halfway point of an election campaign, hence the Alberta stop. Poilievre will use the momentum of the Alberta rally to try and break into the GTHA. He is doing another campaign stop in Brampton this week, followed by Windsor.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by JakeLRS

I mean I think that's just the way he talks. A lil narly for sure, but can't change it.

I agree, he does it often enough to be like an ingrained habit.

[travis3000]

Originally Posted by FrankieFlowerpot

Bragging about the size of a CPC rally? In Alberta? Is that all he has?

https://bsky.app/profile/ctheriault.bsky.social/post/3lmcsynxwps2j

Who's gunna tell him Pierre Trudeau had rallies of 20,000 back in the 70s when our population was less than half of todays