Some bad numbers for the Liberals in the aftermath of Charitygate are out, and some of my colleagues have different takes on it, and the circumstances that made it happen. Since there seems to be no shortage of opinions here and there in the blogtwitsphere I figured I'd add my own.
1) If you dig into the Leger survey, his bias running interference for the separatists is revealed in terms of language and question framing. Trudeau is described entirely in the negative and connected with the WE story, which likely drives down the numbers. Meanwhile, a separate section — regarding sexual assault allegations on social media — doesn't mention Yves-Francois Blanchet at all.
The WE question(s):
As you may have read, heard or seen, there has been some controversy over the rewarding of a federal government contract to a charitable organization called WE Canada. Concerns regarding conflict of interest involving the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister have been made and, subsequently, the contract with WE has been cancelled. How has this affected your view of Justin Trudeau / the Liberal Party of Canada?
The Government’s Ethics Commissioner is investigating to determine if the Prime Minister was in violation of the ethics code governing his conduct as an elected official as it related to the WE issue. If he is found to be in violation on this issue, it will be the third time he has been found to have violated the proper ethical conduct of an elected official. If Justin Trudeau is found guilty of breaching the ethical code of conduct, should there be an election so the people of Canada can decide if Justin Trudeau is fit to continue as Prime Minister?
and the #metoo questions:
Which of the following comes closest to describing your view about accusing people of sexual misconduct (including sexual assault) on social media? (It is not justifiable, these accusations should be made through the justice system / It is justifiable, victims should be free to speak publicly about their experiences)
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: If a public figure in entertainment, the arts, etc. is publicly accused of sexual misconduct (including sexual assault), their work should be banned (from the airwaves, television networks, museums, theatres, etc.)
If a public figure (in entertainment, the arts, etc.), whose content you consume was publicly accused of sexual misconduct (including sexual assault) and said they will work to change their behaviour (for example, through therapy, working on him/herself), would you be willing to consume their content (e.g. movies, music, art, etc.) again in the future?
But no mention of a public figure in politics. And not a public figure named Yves-Francois Blanchet. Moreover, it seems apologies and working on doing better are only acceptable for hurting people with sexual misconduct than some stupid bureaucratic red tape violation where no one was harmed.
Look at the words he uses for Trudeau: "found guilty," "violation," "conduct of an elected official," "fit to continue as Prime Minister." All of it negative. All of it making him out to be bad.
Where's the section asking that if Blanchet's allegations are proven, what's your opinion of him or the Bloc, and should there be a leadership review to see if he is fit to continue as Bloc leader?
The answer is nowhere, because Leger has proven himself to be as much of a stooge for PKP as Angus Reid and Dart are for Postmedia.
Our friend Ottlib's latest post is about the torquing of push polls, and he is right. This particular one from Leger is such hot garbage and so offensive it should be trashed for blatant bias. Sexual assault is a lot more severe than a CoI breach, which is basically just an HR issue blown up to be "corruption." But I guess he was right about Andrew Scheer being more reflective of Canadians than Justin Trudeau. He just won't admit the description applies to himself.
2) Simon writes about the DipperCon attack hurting Trudeau and his party with a manufactured "scandal." If you dig into the regionals of that poll, the Cons have not gained at all; the Liberal drop is parked pretty evenly between the Bloc and NDP. (Also, Nanos numbers circulating on Twitter are more favourable in Quebec, again proving Leger's BQ bias.) That said, this is nonetheless concerning, as it effectively places the Liberals neck-and-neck with the Cons in time for the "leader boost," which I'm sure was the point of all this. Like with Benghazi, it's the Kevin McCarthy inquisition.
But an election in the midst of a pandemic would be political suicide for the axis of evil, which means there is probably (hopefully) still time for the Liberals to claw their way back. Jesse Brown is already complaining that the media attention seems to be moving into post-scandal "epilogue mode," which I hope is true (does anybody watch Power & Politics besides political junkies?). I'm pissed that they still managed to get their pound of flesh with this contrived Clinton Cash hit job. But I keep telling myself that campaigns do matter, and the last election proved that the Big Red Machine is formidable. I just hope it's formidable enough during the writ period against the Blue Media Machine when they start gaslighting that Potato Pete is a "progressive conservative."
3) There are little to no honest pollsters in Canada. They are all push pollsters, most of them self-selecting Internet panels, sponsored by Con media outlets to gauge whether their propaganda is having an effect on the populace. Nik Nanos' "punditry" is just massaging the message for CTV and the Globe. Dart and ARI do junk panels for Postmedia and I wrote about Leger fronting for TVA. ToryStar employs Nick Kouvalis, Doug Ford's resident sounder, after having fired John Corbett last election cycle for being honest and calling Andrew Scheer a liar. Sensitive snowflakes.
Even Abacus has started on a Con tilt, probably to "prove" themselves "unbiased" after relentless Twitter attacks on Bruce Anderson as being the father of Trudeau's former communications director Kate Purchase. This is how Cons "work the refs". They can't accept that reality has a liberal bias. So they force everyone else to abandon reality and substitute their own. Cons cook the books.
4) On the issue of Dippers helping Cons: It's the same old accelerationism and horseshoe politics as in the U.S. with the symbiotic relationship between Sanders and Trump. Dippers being invited to attack Trudeau on Con pundit shows like Power & Politics, The West Block, or Question Period is no different from Bernie surrogates attacking Biden/Hillary on Fox News. Attacking Trudeau and helping Cons won't get them anywhere closer to addressing systemic racism or improving healthcare. But as I wrote earlier, that may not be their immediate goal. Everybody wants Trudeau out because he doesn't suffer fools gladly and won't bend on certain pet issues that stick in the Dippers' craw. But it's not like they'd be more cooperative with Freeland either, what with smearing her as a neocon warmonger in a pant suit. (Sound familiar?)
5) Finally, here's some footage from the NDP HQ of Jack Layton's corpse being reanimated to attack Justin Trudeau like a common Paul Martin circa 2006.
