• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

New Canadian Politics Thread

Wayward DP said:
I mean sure Wehave does not always make his point super eloquently (or he does, depending on your perspective), but does anyone actually object to the argument that looks matter in politics?

Now, whether it is proper to be critiquing the appearances of each prospective candidate in such detail is a different inquiry
Click to expand...
That's mostly why I'm surprised. I'm also surprised that he's USUALLY correct about things because he has the personality of a Freedom Fight/Patriot/whatever buzzwords those dummies use to describe themselves.
 
A picture is worth a thousand words, lesson 1:
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
You're naïve if you think that anyone gets elected these days because of things more significant than looks, speaking style, comportment etc. What you look and sound like has been the most important thing since the advent of color television. Policies are important but if the embodiment of those policies are a candidate who isn't pleasing to the eyes and ears then you're at a disadvantage unless your opponent is similarly unappealing.

In the 1960 Presidential debate, a tanned John Kennedy seemed on television to wipe the floors with Dick Nixon, who was suffering with a bad cold and was pale and sweaty. Even in black and white it was easy to see which candidate looked more ready to lead and people who were polled after watching the debate gave it to JFK in a landslide. But when they polled people who had only heard the debate on the radio the opinion as to which candidate won the debate was closer to a 50/50 split.

That's why I say that in 2022 there is no universe in which a buck-toothed "Karen" like Marilyn Gladu, an incel-looking nerd like Michael Cooper or a hillbilly on Ivermectin like Martin Shields is beating Justin Trudeau. And all the good looking Cons are mostly batshit crazy so as soon as they open their mouths it will be game over.

Pierre Trudeau didn't beat Bob Stanfield in 1972 just because of policies. He beat him because voters didn't want to be associated with someone who looked like a doddering and awkward old git next to the youthful and athletic Trudeau. In fact, both Trudeau's were barely in federal politics for 5 minutes before becoming their party's leader and shortly thereafter Prime Minister. It wasn't their wealth of political experience and acumen that got them elected. It was a combination of their good looks and their opponents' ineptitude. Remember the Harper attack ads where they made fun of Justin with that "Nice hair" line? Well yeah, it was nice hair and that nice hair that was dark and youthful beat the silver banker's haircut that Harper was wearing. Pierre Trudeau looked credible when he showed up to the 1970 Grey Cup wearing football cleats as he booted the ceremonial kick-off. Bob Stanfield's campaign imploded when he was photographed fumbling a football that was tossed to him at an election photo op.

Policy shmolicy. The electorate isn't that deeply invested in the issues and if they bother to vote at all they often vote for the most superficial of reasons. I'm not saying it's right, it's simply the way things are. Even newborn babies have been shown in studies to naturally gravitate toward attractive looking people more than not so attractive people. It's something we are hard-wired with.
Click to expand...

zeke said:
Andrew_Scheer_2020_%28cropped%29.jpg
Click to expand...
 
blkngldbabe said:
Sadly that speaks to people who are insecure AF and tie self worth to looks. There’s definitely something to be said for people who have great self confidence and are well spoken. Some of that can come from not being hard on the eyes. Pierre was a trendy dresser and athletic. Absolutely. Personally I don’t find him
Attractive at all but that’s neither here nor there. I find that many women in politics get reduced to their looks or being called a Karen if they show any backbone or don’t allow people to talk down to or over them. Their looks mean sweet fuck all in regards to being capable leaders. Hey, it doesn’t hurt at all when it’s an all in one package. It shouldn’t be the case though. Policy, ideals along with platform and moral convictions should always be how it rolls.
Click to expand...

Redirect Notice

www.google.com
 
MindzEye said:
What it largely comes down to is that there is an expectation for a politician to look at sound a certain way for them to be acceptable to vote for within their given lane. Stephen Harper was successful with conservative leaning Canadians because he looked and talked like an accountant. The vast majority of Canadians don't know enough to understand the finer points of policy and just want broad swaths anyway. All a politician has to do is speak the way their voters think (simply, slowly, appeal to emotion) and look like they're "supposed to" to match that message.
Click to expand...
Hence the reason why Elizabeth Warren can't win the nomination or why (among many, many other reasons) Hillary can't get elected. These people are policy wonks. Good to have in your Cabinet but lousy politicians because they talk over the heads of the dull normals who vote. People don't want well reasoned but long-winded explanations of policy, they want 10 second soundbites, slogans, and "gotcha" type rejoinders. They want to be sold something. They don't want it explained to them and they don't want to understand it. They want it sold to them in such a way as to make them feel positive toward it. They reserve the right to feel duped after the fact when the reality fails to meet their expectations but the fact of the matter is that most people just want it spoon fed to them.

Trudeau the Elder once declared actual martial law and he got away with it not based on the television address he did to explain his reasons for it, he got away with it because when pressed by a reporter as to how far he was prepared to go he shrugged and said "Just watch me." At that moment, even the most Don Cherry-ish redneck would have been sitting in front of their Westinghouse black and white television set pumping their fist saying "Fuck yeah!" even though they couldn't tell you the first thing about what the War Measures Act actually allowed the government to do.
 
Preston said:
That's mostly why I'm surprised. I'm also surprised that he's USUALLY correct about things because he has the personality of a Freedom Fight/Patriot/whatever buzzwords those dummies use to describe themselves.
Click to expand...
honestly I think it is just that a part of me really enjoys his writing style
 
Other side of the same coin… there are risks with mockery, as the Tories discovered when they overemphasized Chrétien’s appearance in ‘93.

They were getting smoked no matter what, but that definitely did not help.
 
lecoqsportif said:
Other side of the same coin… there are risks with mockery, as the Tories discovered when they overemphasized Chrétien’s appearance in ‘93.

They were getting smoked no matter what, but that definitely did not help.
Click to expand...
Exactly. After the Mulroney scandals followed by the overall ineptitude of the short-lived Kim Campbell regime, the Cons had zero chance to win in 93 no matter what they did or who the Liberals chose to run against them. The 93 election was one that even Michael Ignatieff or Stephane Dion could have won without breaking a sweat, never mind Chretien.
 
lecoqsportif said:
View attachment 11298
Click to expand...
Yep. Dorky McDorkface Dukakis.

I remember the debate skit that they did on SNL with Dana Carvey playing Bush and Jon Lovitz playing Dukakis. Carvey did his "Thousand points of light, stay the course" schtick and Lovitz just shrugged and said "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy."

And he did lose to that guy, and he lost by a hefty margin. Then as President, Bush conducted a successful war against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and STILL managed to lose the 92 election simply because the Democrats found themselves a candidate who was young, hip and cool. Again, it was "optics uber alles" as soon as Clinton played the sax on the Arsenio Hall show.
1643910341865.png
 
It’s weird, bc I don’t think they did the same for George Floyd protestors, but what do you need $10 million for to protest anyway? Highly doubt that money was headed to truckers pockets.
 
A bit different.

in Floyd’s case, One of the funds was set up to cover legal expenses and to fund his kids’ education. Those funds are being held in trust by a law firm.

Floyd’s sister started her own modest campaign to cover travel expenses for his funeral and shut it down when donations started getting out of hand.

this one was to raise funds for the actual protest, and organized by some lady who gave her WORD it would cover fuel costs.
 
mbow30 said:
A bit different.

in Floyd’s case, One of the funds was set up to cover legal expenses and to fund his kids’ education. Those funds are being held in trust by a law firm.

Floyd’s sister started her own modest campaign to cover travel expenses for his funeral and shut it down when donations started getting out of hand.

this one was to raise funds for the actual protest, and organized by some lady who gave her WORD it would cover fuel costs.
Click to expand...

there is always an opportunity to steal some money from conservatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top