'I may have hindered a little bit' - Macleans.ca

‘I may have hindered a little bit’


Justin Trudeau concedes that his comments about Alberta might have had some impact on the Calgary Centre race.

“Look, I helped out by being there on the ground. I may have, I may have hindered a little bit, I apologized but in general I think the fact is whether or not we won or lost that byelection there was always going to be an awful lot of work to do in Calgary moving forward towards 2015,” Trudeau said.

There’s actually not a lot of evidence available to determine what effect, if any, Mr. Trudeau’s comments had on the race. The Liberals polled fairly consistently between October 28 and November 21: 28%, 30%, 30% and 32%. The last public poll was conducted over the two days immediately before Mr. Trudeau’s comments were reported. And when the votes were counted, Harvey Locke got 32.7%.


‘I may have hindered a little bit’

  1. Go ahead and hate on Trudeau for being young and people just voting for his name, blah blah blah, but hell would physically freeze over before Harper took responsibility for anything.

    • Excellent point and distinction between the two.

      As far as the name calling, a lot of people have a vested interest in tearing Trudeau down, and the fact that the best they can do so far is call him some lame names and make unfocused insinuations, shows that they’re the ones with little to go on.

      Personally I find Trudeau refreshing to some degree. It’s nice to have someone who actually speaks to higher values in a political context. I don’t really know if he’s up to the job, but I do know that either way the Liberals tend to form fairly productive and balanced governments, so I’m willing to hear him out, or whatever leader they eventually vote in.

    • Harper is taking responsibility for voting no today at the UN. Hell might freeze over soon enough……….

      • He’s not even pretending he’s got nothing to do with the decision to vote no? Wow, that’s impressive. Every time Harper votes he’s “taking responsibility”!

        • Lots of rubbish comments in a row. Macleans comment board is off to a good start today!

          • No.. it looks like there’s usually at least one other comment between yours. So I don’t think you can say “in a row” here.

          • Yes, you are correct, at least one comment in between. Glad to read you didn’t object to my notion that the comments were rubbish.

          • You _and_ Bill did show up today, so the rubbish isn’t that surprising.

      • AKA toeing the American party line. His party also voted against generic drugs for the worlds poor. Even though 21 conservatives used to support it, when the legislation is proposed by an NDP and the Harper government is in charge, its amazing how those 21 conservatives that supported it dropped down to 7. Scrap Harper taking responsibility, the PC thumpers can’t even acknowledge a bad decision when one is made. The amount of PC’s still rallying behind Ford is unfathomable.

        • The amount of Liberal support for Trudeau rallying behing Quebec’s values is unfathomable.

          Two new revelations today about Quebec corruption.

          • A guy from the PQ and a CEO today if that is who you are referring to. AKA not a liberal. You are using the Quebec quote the same way Republicans used the “you didn’t build that” quote. I can cherry pick too, Reford and her big tobacco conflict of interest in Alberta, Ford being sent to the curb, insane political party contributions in Alberta from hockey team owners, lying about our budget, lying about the f35s, robocalls. And for the record, I think everyone that was involved in the corrpution of Quebec should get whats coming to them, Liberal, NDP, PC, Green, PQ whoever. Party affiliation doesn’t matter in these instances, what matters is the people who broke the law face the law.

      • Francien produces Harper campaign ad:

        Voiceover: You want a different kind of leader. You want a politician that takes responsibility.
        (dramatic music and slow motion image of Harper rising in Commons for vote)
        Voiceover: You want a politician that votes on stuff.

  2. I’m surprised by the polling data. I’d have predicted a dip after the quotes came out. The quotes still may have been a momentum killer for Locke (if there was momentum to be killed), but there was no vote hemorrhage. Interesting.

    • ABs are probably still in shock to hear a Trudeau apologize. I was a big fan of his dad, but he wasn’t big on apologizing. Actually i can’t recall one…ever! I sometimes wonder if even the big guy upstairs got one out of him.[ just kidding sensitive types]

      • Trudeau Jr. has not yet apologized for his comments about Quebec PM’s being superior to any other PM and for his comments about Quebec values being higher than Alberta’s.

        You may think that by diverting the subject, you may have fooled everyone that Justin has indeed apologized. Shows how shallow your thinking goes.

        • Actually saying that QC PMs have been demonstrably better or the best is just a matter of subjective opinion – no apology required. He could have said modern PMs if he wanted to narrow it down. Not that it is a great feat of thinking on his part – just ow many modern non QC PMs have their been, and who’s been any good? Pearson, who else?
          He did apologize for equating a region with Harper’s values – good enough IMO.

          • Interesting comment. Actually worth considering.

        • Whether you are satisfied with Trudeau’s apology or not (and for what it’s worth, I’m not either), it’s beside the point — or at least beside the point I was trying to hint at. I would have predicted his comments would have a big impact on Calgary Centre. That polling data suggests they didn’t. I find that interesting. Just more evidence that my political instincts suck I guess.

          • You said: “but there was no vote hemorrhage”

            How can we ever be sure? We don’t even know if Justin really apologized.

          • Oops, my mistake… I assumed you read the above article, which showed Locke’s consistent polling data through the campaign, even post-Trudeau.

          • “The Liberals polled
            fairly consistently between October 28 and November 21: 28%, 30%, 30%
            and 32%. The last public poll was conducted over the two days
            immediately before Mr. Trudeau’s comments were reported. And when the
            votes were counted, Harvey Locke got 32.7%.”

            Of course I had read that part before doing any of my posting on this thread. But how do you know what those numbers indicate? What does the number 32.7 indicate? That such make-up was the same as within the number of 32? How will we ever know? The number 32.7 could be made up of people who were not necessarily included within the number 32 earlier. It could easily be the case that some Liberals who were included within the 32.7 were not included within the 32 and some who were included within the 32 were not included within the 32.7. Polls results, or election results, tell us nothing about the shift of thought within those results, only that the election result was similar to the polling results a few days earlier. But those results can tell us nothing whatsoever about Trudeau’s impact on the results. That is what I was getting at. Numbers are just numbers. They tell us nothing about shifting results within the numbers if the numbers stay the same after something of significance has happened. What these results may means is that some Liberals were upset at Trudeau’s statement and apology and decided therefore not to vote or vote for someone else, and it may mean that some Liberals were very happy that Trudeau had made the statement and apology and decided to vote for Locke because of it.

            Sorry to make my post this long, but I find polling to be most confusing and misleading. I therefore agree wholeheartedly with the statement made above:

            “There’s actually not a lot of evidence available to determine what effect, if any, Mr. Trudeau’s comments had on the race.”

            Indeed, the results show no evidence of anything!

          • Well, that’s all appreciated… however, I’m saying that MY expectation heading into that election was that Trudeau’s comments would cause a vote hemorrhage. You’re right, maybe it did… but for that to have been the case, Locke would have had to have seen a vote windfall from another direction. Does it seem reasonable to you that Trudeau’s comments GAINED the Liberals support in CC.?

            The other assumption I make is that, given the fact this is a traditionally Conservative riding, Liberal support would be soft. I am assuming a relatively minor issue might have a pretty big impact. I assumed Trudeau’s (and McGuinty’s) comments were a monstrous issue. I thought it would be a big vote mover. On the surface, the polling data suggests it wasn’t. Now if we find out there were other factors at play (if that’s possible to do), I will find that very interesting, too.

            Whatever went on, it didn’t shake down the way I thought it would. I was surprised it was as close as it was. Locke’s support, wherever it came from, and for whatever reason, remained stable. Again, interesting.

          • Yes, it is interesting indeed that Locke’s support, wherever it came from, and for whatever reason, remained stable. And, of course, your opinion – that a hemorrhage did not take place – is a very valid one, but does not necessarily tell us very much.

            I, too, was particularly interested in what the vote would do in that riding. But what has interested me more, is in finding out what role the media plays when elections are being covered and what role the media plays in considering the matter settled.

            Yes, absolutely do I think that Trudeau’s comments could have gained the Liberals support in CC. I am convinced that many Albertans, as well as Liberal leaning Albertans and in particular Albertans living in the riding of CC who were on national display because of the CC by-election, did not want to make a bigger problem out of this then had been caused by JT’s statement. You see, JT’s comments had caused Albertans to be put on the spot if you like. JT had just painted Albertans to be unworthy of making things work for Canada, and so for Albertans to protest en masse by throwing things right back in JT’s face, would have proven JT’s point. I have no idea if JT had counted on that fact, but his apology was as soft and as insincere as I have ever heard and he got away with it!

            CC may traditionally be a conservative riding, but don’t underestimate the power of the Trudeau name. Yes, PET was not popular in the west at the end of his tenure, but when the great wave of Trudeaumania was in full swing at the onset, even the west was taken in by such great excitement and would love to relive such times. One could ask perhaps: who wouldn’t? Who wouldn’t like to dwell on nostalgia every now and then? We are all human after all.

            But in any case, I started questioning the media’s role in all of this. JT’s apology was not only insincere (Albertans/Harper?? what was he trying to say there, really??); it also was a partially delivered recanting of his statement in that the Quebec “being superior’ part had not been addressed AT ALL when he spoke that morning in Vancouver. Why, I wonder, why would the media not insist that Trudeau clarify his remarks on that particular statement made, that of Quebec values and Quebec PM being superior, and most precisely, superior in comparison to Alberta’s values, for making Canada (or Quebec??) work?

            There is something very strange going on here. Just like something very strange was going on when the Reform Party first appeared onto the scene. What JT and the RP have in common, when considering them both at the onset of aiming to form leadership, is that there is an unwillingness on behalf of the media to put substance behind opinion. Just as JT is not being substantially looked at now, so too was the RP not substantially looked at then by the members of the media country wide. And still, many members of the media today have no real idea of what the RP had been all about.

            Why this superficial coverage by media outlets country wide, in regards to JT and in regards to the RP?

            “The west wants in” was (is) not a slogan forewarning divisiveness just as ‘Quebec being superior” is not a slogan forewarning unity. Yet both are being sold as if they (were) are.

            And I, for one, cannot figure that one out!

          • Or we could just apply time tested rule: The simplest explanation is the correct explanation.

            Which is to say (if you look at the last several election results) that the LPC has a base of somewhere between 8,000 to 10,000, and, as they do during every election, most of them showed up, they weren’t dissuaded by either the McGunity comment of the Trudeau faux pas – why would they be – and, being a byelection, they thought the LPC might actually have a chance.

            I’m not going to rule out the possibility that the Trudeau mistake led to a hemmoraghe that was almost exactly offset by a surge from somewhere else, but that explanation is simply less likely.

  3. And so Trudeau thinks it better to adopt Quebec’s values over Alberta’s for setting community standards and such social-democratic things………..

    What values is Trudeau talking about exactly?

    “Quebec environment minister Breton resigns over fraud scandal, Ex-boss
    of SNC Lavalin, Pierre Duhaime, arrested by Quebec anti-corruption unit,
    Quebec’s public inquiry into corruption,…….and who again was
    punished in Adscam?”

    • I’m not a big fan of Trudeau but, if you’re trying to associate him with every negative story coming out of Quebec, when is Harper going to own up to the fact that, for most of his time in office, most of Alberta’s pro sports teams (Flames, Oilers and Eskimos, especially) have pretty much reeked.

      • Francien’s comment is so staggeringly obtuse and even offensive i find it difficult to imagine anything that would top your fun example.

        • Im pretty sure Francien is apart of the Harper administrations social media gulag task force that goes out to ensure people still think its everyones fault but Harper for everything.

          • Self appointed maybe. Not even the cons would pay for it surely. Although, they do muddy up the waters around here. Probably all the PMO wants.

          • ……………very proud of the fact that I have a well working mind of my own. Just checking out these comment boards. I’m wondering if they can get as unreasonable as the G&M comment boards have been for so long.

          • Why the need to belong to any political party to find out what reason is all about? I don’t need any party apparatus telling me what or how to think.

        • So tell me then what Trudeau’s comments mean when he says that Quebec’s values are superior to those held by Albertans? Are the corrupt actions not undertaken by Quebeckers?

      • I am not trying to associate him with every negative story coming out of Quebec. I am merely trying to find out what Justin Trudeau’s values are when he compares them to Alberta/Harper values, when he thinks that Quebec’s values are superior, or are at least more palatable to Quebeckers, because that is what he has said in the video. He was talking about values, not pro-sports teams. Or are you suggesting that corruption should not be regarded in the sense of values held?

        • “I am merely trying to find out what Justin Trudeau’s values are when he
          compares them to Alberta/Harper values, when he thinks that Quebec’s
          values are superior, or are at least more palatable to Quebeckers…”

          You slyly framed your original comment in such a way as to infer that corruption was a characteristic unique to Quebec political behaviour and that Trudeau, therefore, espouses it as a value.

          I would suggest that sanctimony isn’t restricted to Trudeau and/or Quebec. The public record is replete with similar comments coming out of Albertans’ mouths regarding the ROC, Quebec in particular (and, too be fair, I’m sure politicians from other jurisdictions make similarly parochial comments, especially when they think they’re only speaking to “their own”).

          Nor is corruption restricted to the conduct of Quebec politicians. Is the current premier of Alberta not currently defending herself against an unseemly conflict of interest allegation?

          • At this moment in time, I would say that Quebec is the most corrupted society within Canadian bounds, as reported by many media outlets and by Macleans (I have not looked up the fact if Macleans report on Quebec corruption preceded Trudeau’s video remarks or if it was after). These people who are corrupted live in the province of Quebec and thereby form part of that community. We cannot move around that fact. Neither can Trudeau.

            If Trudeau is of the opinion that Quebec values are regarded higher by him than are Alberta values, then, yes, absolutely, I would like for him to clarify such statement. What are Trudeau’s values when he talks about Quebec values? Some of these corrupt Quebeckers are no doubt high profile members of the Quebec community. Would Trudeau like to tell us that those high profile but corrupt people are not part and parcel of what makes up the Quebec community?

            Of course, corrupt behaviour is not restricted to Quebec only. But it has become abundantly clear that corruption is particularly deep seeded within the province of Quebec, and not just amongst politicians but amongst business people as well.

            All things being considered and all things being equal, I would say that no other federal or provincial politician has made similar damaging and divisive comments as have been made by Trudeau within his video remarks.

          • You’re entitled to your opinion about which part of Canada is “the most corrupted society within Canadian bounds” but I would suggest your opinion is bereft of any empirically sound evidence to support it. Nor is it a fair depiction of the great majority of Quebec’s citizenry, whom you’ve just managed to gratuitously stereotype. But carry on, it’s highly unlikely I nor anyone else will disabuse you of your narrow, apparently ill-informed prejudices.

            Just don’t jump up and down with outraged indignation when you hear similarly bigoted comments about red-necked yahoos in Alberta. Sadly for everyone in this land, bigotry knows no provincial boundaries

          • Are there religiously backward people to be found right across this country? Absolutely. Are there religiously backward people living in Alberta. Absolutely.
            Are there more religiously backward people living in Alberta? Perhaps.

            It is therefore correct to lump all CPC and Harper to be religiously backward because Harper happens to have his riding in Alberta? Of course not. Yet, people reach for such conclusions all the time, even on these comment boards. So many are openly stating time and again things being the equivalent of “The CPC and Harper are religious freaks.” No problem with that, apparently. But when I suggest that JT should make clear what his values are in regards to corruption, he should NOT be lumped in with that which is corrupt within his own province. So how does this work?

            You tell me then how it works, here in Canada.

          • WTF?? How did “religious backwardness” (whatever that is) get into this conversation? I don’t know how to respond because I have no clue what in hell you’re even talking about.

            This gets loopier by the comment.