Liberals Hold Statistically Insignificant Lead
Liberals Hold Statistically Insignificant Lead
What is interesting but disappointing here is that Conservatives lead with under 35s. I thought that Conservatism here would die off with the boomers but clearly not.
Young men are very conservative right now.
There’s a lot of right wing content like Joe Rogan and Andrew Tate that is popular in that age group. YouTube is a massive rabbit hole for that stuff.
It’s also not easy for them to get jobs and housing is unaffordable to them. There’s a strong anti “woke” sentiment that men are getting left behind by feminism and that masculinity is being punished in society.
I don’t think we can just brush it off as simply toxic masculinity, there’s truth to men’s issues that need to be addressed: men are pursuing post secondary education less than ever, they don’t believe they can get ahead, male suicide is higher, male loneliness is higher, there aren’t enough clear role models of men in jobs like teaching, the traditional archetype of men as providers is becoming unattainable as cost of living increases faster than wages.
We can’t treat this the way Tate and co do with their greedy take everything you can hostile approach, but Pollievre and the right wing speak directly to their anger and acknowledge them in a way nobody else is.
Anyway, that’s my rant. The men’s liberation community has some good discussions (don’t know how to link it on Mlem).
I’m an egalitarian/humanist and that includes supporting feminism. There’s room to help everyone.
YouTube is a massive rabbit hole for that stuff.
I think it's so effective in part because nobody else seems to be acknowledging the concerns of this demographic. When young men wonder why life sucks, the first ones to hear them and provide an answer - any answer - win their votes.
To be honest, it's far more than that. Those are merely symptoms of a greater problem, which is why conservatism has taken such a strong hold not just in Canada, but in probably half of the world. You keep hearing about far right nationalists gaining in the polls or even winning elections in Europe, not just with Trump down south.
When the world is changing rapidly, and the consequences of that change is making life harder, people tend to want to hold on to what little is still good rather than push for the next change to make things better. It's basic evolutionary loss aversion, which is far stronger in human psyche than hope. Of course, that only goes as far as until people start feeling that they have almost nothing left to lose, in which case they start flocking to gambling in ever greater numbers (you should see how much sports gambling has been making lately while the lotto and traditional casinos have been at it as strong as ever).
The most frustrating thing about all of this is that our leaders are have little to do with what's been going bad all over the world (well, except in a few areas like housing), while they are also the only real force that can make things better. Instead, populist politicians that say whatever feels good while making the entire situation worse due to a combination of skewed incentives and incompetence keep getting voted in.
This has been the cause of many of hour greatest historical tragedies, and we are repeating them once again. Just look at how the US is starting to resemble 1930s Germany or Italy.
I understand that conservative movements have done an effective job at aligning our culture's concept of masculinity with conservative values.
What I don't understand is that the stat is "under 35's", not "males under 35". One would think that for every man that feels progressive politics is for triggerable-purple-haired-whales and no-good-lazy-soyboys, there would be more than one woman that feels conservative politics is for abusive-crypto-fascist-dicks and no-good-vacuous-pickmes.
Men are only half the population, so what's drawing women to conservative politics?
To some degree its because the majority of children are born to non liberal household as liberals are usually trying to not have too many kids. We also tend to let kids be free to form their own opinions. This means that the right always has more pull with youth unless said youth are born close enough to a point of history where the horrors wrought from the wars of fascists are fresh in their minds.
Gen Z represents a generation that has forgotten said horrors.
Social medias. That's it. They are the ones consuming the dog shit right wing content that the tech oligarchy is serving them. Theybare falling for it.
It gets worse when you cut off the millennials
Zoomers are highly conservative
I thought that Conservatism here would die off with the boomers but clearly not.
Me too, but when the culture wars started to solidify in people's minds, that was when the progressives lost the plot of the next generations.
Teenagers are mean. Specially men. And if by the time they're 18 they're knees deep on the other side of this perceived culture wars, it's a done deal for life. They'll vote for Satan himself if that will "trigger the libs". We have a generation that is partly proud of a president shitposting about turning Gaza into a Trump resort. This level of inhumanity was something the boomers themselves would not understand.
Gen Z helped Trump during the last US election too
C'mon Canada I believe in y'all
That was one of the topics in the Liberal leadership debate last night. What are their plans to win back those voters? Personally, I think it's a mixture of the high cost of living and people's ignorance that leads them to believing conservatism will fix those problems. Conservatives seem to be more willing to lie/spread disinformation that feeds into that ignorance.
Do people believe conservatism will fix those problems? Or are people feeling scared and angry, and the Cons fo a good job of validating those feelings?
Because the attitude I'm seeing is far more "fuck the guys in charge" than it is "the right will fix things". It seems way more about picking a team, and feeling a sense of accomplishment and catharsis for getting a win by proxy, and getting to say "fuck you" to someone, than it does about believing things will get better.
An "insignificant lead" huh? Not exactly the sort of words I would use considering that the Liberals went from "zero chance of winning" to "barely the most likely to win". Frankly, just getting to this point is a massive upset to the degree that PP should resign on the spot just so the Cons have any sort of chance of not being the #1 cause for a new majority Liberal government.
While anything is possible and this can change on a dime, frankly speaking Carney is basically the only leader right now that has both integrity and vision. None of his competitors have either and it is well known that they don't. How can anybody vote for someone who has no idea what they want for the future of Canada aside from just being it's leader?
It's exactly the sort of words I would use, given what the words mean. Statistical significance is a technical term, meaning that the results are likely to be representative of the true value in the population, and not some editorial flair meant to undercut the shift in polls.
The margin of error is larger than the polling advantage measured in the survey, which means the reported lead is statistically insignificant, and that they were just as likely to find that the CPC held a narrow lead if they were to have shuffled their call list during the survey period.
My issue is the use of the word within the context of the matter. Whether the Liberals hold any sort of lead, or if it means much in the long term doesn't really matter. What's important in this article is the changes that's shown up over the last week or so with all their numbers.
For the first time this election, the Liberals have taken popularity from the Conservatives, and by a large amount according to these polls. But the article title is basically trying to put emphasis and downplay the fact that they have a lead at all. The amount is tiny, yes, and from a technical standpoint is certainly is insignificant, but looking at the charts, what's important is the meteoric rise they've achieved in the polls.
While I'm not really a fan of the Liberals (they're more like my least currently hated party than anything), this title feels like it's seriously slanted by trying to downplay and ignore what's actually significant. It's like how Kim Jon Un was "elected by the majority" sort of thing, though maybe that comparison isn't charitable either.
An “insignificant lead” huh? Not exactly the sort of words I would use considering that the Liberals went from “zero chance of winning” to “barely the most likely to win”.
"insignificant" is not qualifying their current state, it's just qualifying by how much they're leading right now.
Carney is basically the only leader right now that has both integrity and vision. None of his competitors have either and it is well known that they don’t.
Did I miss any integrity damning scandal for the other Liberal candidates? They all seem to have a decent track record.
Maybe Doug Ford activated the Ontario phenomenon of electing liberals federally when the conservatives win power provincially.
Are you trying to make us vote Ford?