A new survey suggests Justin Trudeau is voters' top choice for PM. Who would you pick? - Macleans.ca
 

A new survey suggests Justin Trudeau is voters’ top choice for PM. Who would you pick?


 


 
Filed under:

A new survey suggests Justin Trudeau is voters’ top choice for PM. Who would you pick?

  1. The new survey is only suitable for lining a bird cage, just a suggestion

  2. I know my BOTTOM choice is Harper. Mulcair and his party have moved closer to the center but I’m still not sure I’m ready to go there; Trudeau is still untested as a leader. So I guess that leaves Option 4 – wait & see…

    • Yes, Harper Evil Nazi Dictator Bad.

      • The ever entertaining Mr. Bean!

      • Drink!

        • I voted for Justin and I drank too!

      • That’s an idiotic comment almost every time you make it, but here, it makes no sense AT ALL.

        Keith didn’t even say that Harper is a bad PM, just that he’s Keith’s least favorite option.

        There’s some validity to the argument that some commentary about the PM and the Tories goes over the top with all the “dictator” and “fascist” rhetoric that gets tossed about. However, your reply here to Keith’s totally reasonable comment is actually inane in the exact same way, but in the opposite direction. You seem to be very clearly suggesting that the only people who could possibly disagree with the PM are crazy people who think he’s a Nazi dictator.

        Save your cliched ammunition for when it’s actually somewhat warranted.

        • Thank you for your deep, incisive analysis of my post.

          • You’re welcome.

  3. For me: 1st choice is Tom Mulcair. NDP is the best option in my honest opinion. I’m sure not a fan of extremely regressive Conservative politics. As for the liberals, sure, Justin Trudeau is appealing and has a lot of charm: but what does he stand for exactly? What are his ideas? Not much substance there…

    • Socialism is awesome! Smash the capitalist lackeys! All power to the proletariat!
      Ooops, sorry, we’re not supposed to mention that stuff anymore. Never mind.

      • The NDP hasn’t really been a socialist party (in terms of wanting the abolition of non-worker ownership of capital goods) for decades. It really is a standard, socialist-in-name only social democratic party like on gets in Western Europe.

      • Come on Orson, do what Rick did and vote for Justin. Let’s put his name in on all the polls.

    • Yeah! Thomas Mulcair really stands for something: “Dutch Diease”; “Carbon Tax”; Trying to scuttle the Keystone XL. Hmmm I just can’t seem to put my finger on it…

  4. Harper is clearly heads above all the others : despite him needing a persoanlity transplant and being one mean S.O.B at times he clearly meets the needs of being a Canadian PM – if haters are honest (which I doubt most here will be!) – we have 2 types of PM’s (1) boneheads .. and … (2) bast$rds – we get rid of the former a.s.a.p and always re-elect the latter .. as long as they keep their fingers out of the till – just how it is folks

    • So what do we do with boneheaded bastards like the one currently in office?

    • Yes, Harper clearly is brilliant. I mean, remember that accurate fiscal update his government provided in ’08 and his advice to “play the stock market”? Pure brilliance, eh?

      Oh, wait…

      • Canada top performing.
        Economy in G8.
        Thanks to Harper.
        Got anything else.
        Smart to say.

    • Lost 55K jobs in march, his archaic stance against the war on drugs (acknowledges it doesn’t work but continues to waste money on it – so much for personal liberties from the big C), lying about the cost of the f35s, ruining our reputation in the rest of the world environmentally, disbanding the ELA claiming it will save money but will actually cost more in the long run, muzzling scientists and MPs, prorogued parliament twice, foreign temporary workers replacing canadian jobs thanks to Kenney. Robocalls during the elections. I mean you have to be blissfully ignorant to think Harper is heads above. Or you just dont care and you’re letting ideology get the better of you. Probably the latter.

  5. I chose Trudeau, just because I like to mess with these polls and get Liberal’s hopes up.

    • I definitely laughed harder than I probably should have.

    • I’m likely to vote Liberal in the next election, and I still thought your post was funny.

      • If you vote LPC, you will simply get Harper with a nicer smile and prettier hair. The LPC is Corporatist, Le Dauphin is further to the right of Martin and Chretien, and when he starts signing worker hostile trade agreements, all I will say is I told you so. Liberal/Tory same old story.

  6. Polls like this further ingrain the notion that we actually choose our Prime Minister. Our politics today focus on the party leaders, and most people have never met (or even heard of) their own representative. Come on, McLean’s, stop being part of the problem.

  7. Stupid survey again. Justin Trudeau is not even the Liberal leader. How about
    ” none of the above” ? My pick is Elizabeth May, also not on your ballot.

    • They really should’ve added an “other” option.

  8. Are most of the posters to Maclean’s socialists? Why Mulcair?
    Thankfully, most Canadians have elected Mr. Harper.

    • Macleans does not provide number of total votes and the breakdown. I guess, it’s abysmal.

    • I’m sorry, “most” Canadians have not “elected Mr. Harper”. Even if we ignore the fact that Canadians formally elect their Members of Parliament – because .. well, most Canadians vote on the basis of their MP’s party’s leader anyway – it becomes clear that 60% of Canadian voters DID NOT vote for Mr. Harper.

      plurality ≠ most

      • What percent of Canadians voted in Mr. Chretien in his MANY terms in office?

        • In the 1993 election, 5,647,952 votes were cast for the Chrétien Liberals. That’s only 28% of eligible voters, and 41% of the popular vote. The Chrétien Liberals received a majority with 177 of 295 seats.

          In the 1997 election, 4,994,277 votes were cast for the Chrétien Liberals. That’s only 25% of eligible voters, and 38% of the popular vote. The Chrétien Liberals received a majority with 174 of 301 seats.

          In the 2000 election, 5,252,031 votes were cast for the Chrétien
          Liberals. That’s again only 25% of eligible voters, but 41% of the popular
          vote. The Chrétien Liberals received a majority with 172 of 301 seats.

      • At the last election, 5,835,270 votes were cast for the Harper Conservatives. That’s only 24% of eligible voters, and 39% of the popular vote. (Voter turnout was the second lowest in Canada’s history.)

        • The Harper Conservatives received a majority with 166 of 308 seats. In our current system, 39% of all voters determined 54% of the seats.

          In contrast, 31% of all voters voted for the Layton NDP and determined 33% of the seats; 19% of all voters voted for the Ignatieff Liberals and determined 25% of the seats; and 4% of all voters for the May Greens and determined 0.3% of the seats.

      • Conclusion.
        Most Canadians too lazy.
        To bother voting.
        Harper wins majority.
        Crushes Liberals.
        Dummies spend next 4 years whining about it.
        Chretien elected under similar low numbers.

    • I’d guess that most of that 60% going to Mulcair and Trudeau are “who has the best shot of beating Harper” votes, and that with the NDP still being significantly ahead in the House, and Trudeau not actually being leader yet, a lot of people think that’s still Mulcair.

    • “MOST” Canadians did NOT elect Harper. Only 22% of the electorate voted for him. Fewer than 40% of actual voters voted for him. The majority of voters preferred a progressive party.

      • Yes but MOST Canadians did NOT elect Chretien when he had a majority government either. As you can see above only 25% of the electorate voted for him. Fewer than 39% of actual voters voted for him. This occurred in more than one election in his case and I don’t remember ‘progressives’ complaining and calling the results illegitimate then.

        • Your lack of awareness is only evidence of your lack of awareness. Not evidence of anything factual.

          Given that you’re in Alberta and that most internet forums we use today didn’t even *exist* back then except for the highly tech-savvy, I’d ask where exactly you were that you might have heard any significant number of progressives.

          • Excuse me? Are you saying that the results I quoted are incorrect?
            Further, I might be an Albertan but that doesn’t mean that I don’t have friends, family members, etc. who are in other provinces, who happen to have different political views than I do. I also like to travel. I also read the national newspapers and follow news sources.

          • Christ, learn to read.

            What you don’t remember simply shows that you don’t remember something. Given how hard simple English is for you, I don’t think we can take that as evidence of anything else.

          • So what you are saying is that my memory is faulty and that people who voted “left” DID question the legitimacy of Chretien’s majority governments. What I don’t understand, Thwim. Is why you don’t just come out and say that if indeed that is the case. Why the need to belittle and demean? You are always so certain that your writing with clarity and my reading comprehension skills are lacking. I can tell you, my grasp of the English language is quite proficient.

          • When you write idiotic statements, you get treated like an idiot.

            How much of one is directly comparable to how idiotic the statement is.

            In the particular case of your “I don’t remember..” statement, we have levels upon levels of idiocy.

            The first is obviously thinking that your personal experience has any wider bearing. What you remember has a relationship somewhere between 0 and 100% with actual reality, with no way of determining what that relationship is.

            However, let’s assume your memory is absolutely correct, that you really don’t remember anybody saying such things because it didn’t happen in your personal experience. Then we’re only left with the problem of you comparing completely different modes of communication. You obviously weren’t on the Maclean’s forums back then because they didn’t exist. So at *best*, you’re generalizing between the “progressives” you know personally, and those people on this forum. However, for arguments sake, let’s give you this one as well. Let’s say those people are roughly similar in opinions to those here. Now you still have to deal with the different formats. This is a fairly political forum. People talk mostly about politics. You’re going to, therefore, see a lot of commentary about it and about specific things with it. I’m fairly certain that when you spoke with “progressives” before, it generally wasn’t in political forum like this one, and certainly not over such an extended period of time which can bring forward multiple topics — ie, it could be it just didn’t come up.

            However, just to drive home how idiotic your statement is, I’m going to simply ignore all the reasons why what you remember simply isn’t a good comparison for what you’re seeing now. Let’s give you all of that. Let’s assume that back in Chretien days, Maclean’s existed, you were on it, various progressives were talking about various issues, vote percentages came up, and nobody complained about Chretien’s percentage. Let’s give you all that.

            Now that you’ve got all that… so what?

            Whether they talked about it or not makes absolutely *zero* difference to whether the situation is acceptable or not. Hell, I’d argue that if any of them were saying it was acceptable back then, they’d be wrong. It’s not acceptable now, it wasn’t acceptable then, and whether anybody said boo about it back then doesn’t change anything about the situation now one iota.

            So what we see is if we give you the absolute *best* circumstances for your argument, you’re still basically left with a lousy poisoning the well fallacy. If they didn’t comment on it before, but are commenting on it now, obviously they’re just hypocrites so the argument should be ignored regardless of it’s truth value, correct? That’s an idiotic argument. Worse, it’s an insulting one.

            And when you insult a group of people in general, by suggesting they’re all hypocrites, you can expect to receive some hostility. When you do so while making an idiotic argument, well.. you get treated like a colossal idiot.

            Does that clear it up for you?

            Oh, and as a final comment, while your grasp may be proficient, if you fail to USE that proficiency, you’re going to get treated like it doesn’t exist.

          • Oh yes I get it. Let me summarize your argument. When people who belong to the Liberal party complain that a Conservative government is not legitimate because it was elected with less than 40% of the popular vote, you Thwim sit on your hands and say nothing. When people who vote Conservative, point out that Liberal governments have gotten into power with under 40% of the popular vote and those in the Liberal party took that ascension into power as their due, you strike out like a nasty little school boy taunting the bus monitor. Wow, I am surprised that along with calling me an idiot, you didn’t taunt me for being old, ugly and overweight. Didn’t you notice that that is what little bully-boys do, Thwim.
            As for my “insulting a group of people in general by suggesting they’re all hypocrites”, I responded to the blogger in the exact language she used to describe the voters. If you got the impression I was “suggesting” the blogger is a hypocrite, pardon me. I obviously was not clear. I am saying the blogger is a hypocrite and so is everyone who calls this government illegitimate but accepts everyone other government that got elected with the same lousy percentage of the popular vote, legitimate.
            Now go away. You have zero manners. Inflict them on the people who have to put up with you…your family.

      • Oh really.
        Where were all these progressives.
        When it was time to vote.
        Harper got a majority.
        Crushed the Liberals.
        Canada has spoken.
        Stop whining.

  9. Justin Beiber, if it has to be a Justin

  10. I vote for the devil I know – HARPER.

  11. Justin has pretty hair.

  12. I’d like to see a poll asking who is your LEAST favorite choice for PM.

    • Harper for sure.

      • Yes, Harper Evil Nazi Dictator Worse Than North Korean Nutjob Bad.

        • Drink!

          • Now come on, he is right on that one. People are sure that Harper is Stalin re-incarnated. I grew up in the west and central Canadians give us a hard time about the National Energy Program but I have to tell you, even with the hatred toward Trudeau, I don’t remember people calling him a Nazi, etc. People do love to get going with the hyperbole when it comes to Mr. Harper, his illegitimate government and the ‘irreparable damage he is doing to our beloved country”. Just last week, a Liberal blogger called us conservative party members “amoral”.
            Well, the facts are that Canadians are among the worst in the world for stealing goodies from hotel rooms…maybe we are country of amoral people and now the UN is chastising us for letting our teenagers smoke too much pot and get obese. Wasn’t it the Liberal Party that was planning to legalize cannabis? I don’t really care about legalizing pot, but I will be interested to see how the Liberals juggle appeasing the UN; dumping on Harper for not appeasing the UN and appease their base on legalizing cannabis, all at the same time.

          • People do certainly engage in hyperbole when it comes to Harper and the Tories, but Orson accuses people of that even when they’ve done NO SUCH THING. As, for example, right here. Calling out people who compare Harper to a Nazi, or a dictator is fair enough. All this commenter said, however, was that Harper is his least favorite choice for PM of those on offer. How is THAT worthy of Orson’s ubiquitous derision???

          • Orson is just getting the jump on people. Did you read the comment from the sportsguy who said that Harper wasn’t pleasing his wife in bed? There really is no limit to the lengths some of this HH’s (Harper Hater’s) will go and that guy actually got several “up votes”. Orson’s “ubiquitous derision” indeed.

          • “Getting the jump on people”. What a cute way to put it.

            That’s a wonderful rationale for attacking people for saying things they haven’t actually said. It’s like the preemptive arrest of the blogging world.

          • Well today in the National Post, bloggers from the left are suggesting that Laureen Harper has moved out and is having an affair with a female RCMP officer. Next time a particularly disgusting comment is posted on Macleans, I’ll expect that you’ll want to chastise whoever happens to post it in the spirit of fairness.

          • So, wait, how did it suddenly become my responsibility to chastise people who make over-the-top comments on the Macleans blogs in order to balance out Orson chastising people who DIDN’T make over-the-top comments??? Also, how does that seem “fair”?

            I have no problem with calling out comments X, Y or Z for being over the top. I DO have a problem with commenters lumping reasonable criticisms in with unreasonable criticisms and chastising them ALL with the same old tired refrain. Invoking Godwin’s law is one thing. Invoking Godwin’s law in response to comments that didn’t remotely violate it is something else entirely. I encourage Orson to call out commenters who claim that the government is dictatorial, or Harper’s a fascist, or who make inappropriate personal attacks against elected officials and their spouses. However, I have no time for Orson when he suggests that someone who’s made a perfectly reasonable criticism of the PM or the government ought to be lumped in with the people calling them evil, or Nazis.

            One doesn’t have to think that Harper is evil or dictatorial to wish someone else was PM, and not only is it irrational to suggest otherwise, it undermines the credibility of one’s critiques of people who actually DO think that.

          • Oh, so you’re really only here to police Orson. Okay.

          • Oh, good grief. It’s like talking to a brick wall!

          • Only ‘today’? That ones been making the rounds for well over a year or so.

  13. Elizabeth May.

  14. Anyone but Harper. He has nothing to offer the average Canadian.

    • Top performing economy in the G8.
      Year after year.
      What was that.
      About nothing to offer?

  15. Just to remind everybody, yes Mr. Trudeaus’ father was a great prime minister, but let’s not forget that he did not have a platform either before he became prime minister. I feel his sun is much to young and for anybody to vote for him just because he makes a great speech, that is too shallow. We also remember it was his father that put us even deeper in debt and then the conservatives, that promised to bring the finances in order, even doubled the debt under Mulroney. I think we need a major shift in our Canadian thinking. The Liberals just don’t have it , regardles of all the honest and sincere speeches. Talk comes cheap. I will vote NDP and they better do the right job for us or I will vote them out too.

  16. Girls,

    Don’t vote for Trudeau for the reason that he is good looking…

  17. Why was there no “Anybody BUT Justin (“The Entitled”) Trudeau?” option? The man makes my stomach turn.

    • Same reason there wasn’t an “ANYBODY BUT Harper” option [oops – threw up in my mouth a little just thinking he might win another term]

  18. Trudeau having no experience. Just the nam, and his sex appeal for woman. Check when he talk afeter the leadership.

  19. My grandfather said “when the conservatives are in power. The rich get richer. When the liberals are in power everyone works. Over the years that I have been around that seems to be true.

    • Nope, since the 1980s, the wages of working people have fallen or remained stagnant under both Libs and Tories, while the gap between rich and poor has increased over 300%. Sorry, your grandfather was wrong. My grandfather said that a working man, given a chance would naturally vote against his own best interest, and that explained why the Libs or the Tories always won.

  20. The last time I checked, Mulcair was a solid second; now all of a sudden he’s in third. This kind of polling is stupid simply because there is no way to know the distribution of policial inclination of posters. This survey could easily have been gerry mandered, punk’d by LPC supporters. There is no way Maclean should be engaging in this. Even if my choice Tom Mulcair were ahead, I wouldn’t buy it. The CBC forums are just as unreliable for the same reason. That is why there polling companies which do so using controls. This result is nonsense.

    • And in related news, water is wet.

      I’m sorry, were you actually concerned that someone might take an open online poll as a serious indicator of anything? ’cause that seems to be a pretty far reach, if you ask me.

  21. Voting for someone.
    Based on family name alone.
    Just goes to show.
    How dumb Canadian voters are.