Trudeau Popularity - or not. Nanos research

[mariomike]

Federal leadership: Trudeau enjoys end of year approval bump; Poilievre remains deeply unpopular with women - Angus Reid Institute

54% view CPC leader unfavourably, twice the number who said same of Harper at similar point in reign December 19, 2022 – As Christmas nears, Canadians have more holiday jeers

angusreid.org

Poilievre remains deeply unpopular with women

​

 

[Good2Golf]

Federal leadership: Trudeau enjoys end of year approval bump; Poilievre remains deeply unpopular with women - Angus Reid Institute

54% view CPC leader unfavourably, twice the number who said same of Harper at similar point in reign December 19, 2022 – As Christmas nears, Canadians have more holiday jeers

angusreid.org

Angus Reid deliberately wrote the article wording to misrepresent (aka. Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics) how Poilièvre was seen.

When you look at the total data, it’s clear that ‘Unknown’ for Poilièvre makes up the difference of favourability between Trudeau and Poilièvre. Trudeau and Poilièvre share an EQUAL 53% um favourable rating by the numbers…so “same, same” when it comes to the ‘we don’t like him factor.’ It then adds in the misdirective ‘but women favour Trudeau more’ trope. So what? so long as men vote at similarly proportional levels as women, that’s an irrelevant point.

If Angus Reid was honest with the stats, it’d point out “Canadians favour more the socialist guy who wears Rolexes and drives a BMW.”

 

[Lumber]

Angus Reid deliberately wrote the article wording to misrepresent (aka. Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics) how Poilièvre was seen.

When you look at the total data, it’s clear that ‘Unknown’ for Poilièvre makes up the difference of favourability between Trudeau and Poilièvre. Trudeau and Poilièvre share an EQUAL 53% um favourable rating by the numbers…so “same, same” when it comes to the ‘we don’t like him factor.’ It then adds in the misdirective ‘but women favour Trudeau more’ trope. So what? so long as men vote at similarly proportional levels as women, that’s an irrelevant point.

If Angus Reid was honest with the stats, it’d point out “Canadians favour more the socialist guy who wears Rolexes and drives a BMW.”

I think the more telling metrics are:

1. The relative unfavourability score of PP compared to the previous three CPC leaders at this same point in their tenure as party leader;
2. The fact that a quarter of both AB and SK view PP as very-unfavourable;'
3. That some of the main issues of PP supporters (ethics and taxes, especially the carbon tax) are at the bottom of the list of most important issues to Canadians at large. By comparison, climate change is #3 overall.

 

[dapaterson]

Canadians vote out a government, then stick with them until it's time to vote them out.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yet if you look here it continues to show the Cons with a higher percentage of the popular vote.

So while PP may, or may not, be popular country wide the party still seems to be the leader in pure popularity. Maybe it's a hate the playa not the game scenario lol

Welcome to 338Canada

338canada.com

 

[Brad Sallows]

I haven't seen the CPC call to cut this. If they have that wouldn't be a smart move.

They could just be truthful. Remind everyone that money is fungible; that they are going to offer the same health care funding proposal as last time and need to fund it; that people are having trouble getting medical care for sick kids and kids are in some cases dying. Ask voters at large whether child care subsidies for parents who are in many cases already well off are more important than medical care for children.

 

[Lumber]

They could just be truthful. Remind everyone that money is fungible; that they are going to offer the same health care funding proposal as last time and need to fund it; that people are having trouble getting medical care for sick kids and kids are in some cases dying. Ask voters at large whether child care subsidies for parents who are in many cases already well off are more important than medical care for children.

I may be more well off than most (though it doesn't feel like it lately), but the price people pay for daycare is the same regardless of your family income. To me and my personal situation (took a significant pay cut with my new job, and wife is on parental leave), this $1200 a month saving is MASSIVE. I can't imagine what it looks like to a family with a household income half of mine.

 

[Halifax Tar]

They could just be truthful. Remind everyone that money is fungible; that they are going to offer the same health care funding proposal as last time and need to fund it; that people are having trouble getting medical care for sick kids and kids are in some cases dying. Ask voters at large whether child care subsidies for parents who are in many cases already well off are more important than medical care for children.

I would think anyone voting Liberal would be ok with a household income cap on the child care subsidy. Say set it 100k for household income. Over that and you're on your own.

 

[Lumber]

I would think anyone voting Liberal would be ok with a household income cap on the child care subsidy. Say set it 100k for household income. Over that and you're on your own.

How about an index instead. Over 100k? You get 75%. Over 150k? You get 50%, etc. Otherwise, with daycare as expensive as it is, there would actually be clear cut incentive line where it pays to not work.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Means-testing, sure. I'd choose a ceiling somewhere under the median income, lest it be ridiculously high. But the burden of raising children didn't just wink into existence a few years ago. People have been paying the costs of raising their children for millennia.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Means-testing, sure. I'd choose a ceiling somewhere under the median income, lest it be ridiculously high. But the burden of raising children didn't just wink into existence a few years ago. People have been paying the costs of raising their children for millennia.

In more ways than one

 

[Halifax Tar]

How about an index instead. Over 100k? You get 75%. Over 150k? You get 50%, etc. Otherwise, with daycare as expensive as it is, there would actually be clear cut incentive line where it pays to not work.

I like A 100K bar. If your household is taking in that or more you can afford child care.

 

[dimsum]

I like A 100K bar. If your household is taking in that or more you can afford child care.

Is that across the board? Families in Toronto/Vancouver (assuming they have mortgages or are renting) earning $100k don't have as much disposable income as those in lower COL places.

 

[Brad Sallows]

People making > 100K seem to be part of the income fraction that likes to make fun of the hillbillies who shop at Walmart. That suggests they don't shop (at least not very much) at those kinds of stores, which were a source of many things for parents with kids in my day (K-Mart existed for that purpose at that time). When those jokes go away, I'll suppose that parents are being prudent about their spending; meanwhile, no subsidies for people who can afford late model cars, mobile phones for kids, etc.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Is that across the board? Families in Toronto/Vancouver (assuming they have mortgages or are renting) earning $100k don't have as much disposable income as those in lower COL places.

That's a good point. Perhaps this should be a provincial and not federal matter.

 

[dimsum]

That's a good point. Perhaps this should be a provincial and not federal matter.

I don't have kids so I don't follow this closely, but isn't it already a provincial matter?

 

[Halifax Tar]

I don't have kids so I don't follow this closely, but isn't it already a provincial matter?

I thought it was a federal program, but Ill be honest I don't know. We have kids but dont use a babysitter

 

[ArmyRick]

Couldn't give a rats arse about polls, even when they favour Trudy falling. They don't always predict the outcome.

Trudeau Liberals arrogance I think will cost him.

Fact is, he has been losing slowly since 2015. 2019, Minority government, 2021, another minority government. Those are not jump up and celebrate victories. They are warnings like when a recruit goes up on a PRB and decide to give them another chance.

 

[Lumber]

People making > 100K seem to be part of the income fraction that likes to make fun of the hillbillies who shop at Walmart. That suggests they don't shop (at least not very much) at those kinds of stores, which were a source of many things for parents with kids in my day (K-Mart existed for that purpose at that time). When those jokes go away, I'll suppose that parents are being prudent about their spending; meanwhile, no subsidies for people who can afford late model cars, mobile phones for kids, etc.

Thanks to now having kids of daycare age and rising interest rates, I have a family income over $100K but shop for my chlothes at Frenchy's (Value Village on a good day) . Walmart is splurging.

 

[Lumber]

I like A 100K bar. If your household is taking in that or more you can afford child care.

Tell you what; you leave my daycare subsidy alone and I'll leave your guns alone.