this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
17 points (94.7% liked)

Canada

7203 readers
122 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Universities

πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping

πŸ—£οΈ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
17
Trudeau hopes a 'silent majority' is still willing to listen (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 2 weeks ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

He surely would reject any such comparison but, in a recent interview, Justin Trudeau briefly sounded just a little bit like Richard Nixon.

"The problem is right now that there is a silent majority that is a little bit silent, and maybe wondering whether it's actually a minority. And you got a lot of good, thoughtful people saying, you know, 'I don't have anything personal against the leader, but everyone seems to hate him because I see all these flags and therefore, you know, he must be on his way out or he must be unpopular,'" Trudeau told Village Media.

While Nixon, the 37th president of the United States, didn't coin the phrase, he did popularize the notion of a "silent majority" in a televised address about the war in Vietnam in 1969. Those words conjured up an image of a mass of voters who could not be heard over the din of the protesters and activists clamouring for political and social change.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

In my experience there's never been any such thing as the "silent majority". It's just something desperately unpopular public figures cling to to convince themselves they (or their policies) are popular.

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I've voted Liberal the last few elections, but the last one I was saying I wish Trudeau would step aside because he's too vulnerable and not drawing out any voters. I was only voting against the Conservatives.

I'm not looking forward to this election, because once again I don't want to vote for any of the candidates. This might be my first NDP vote in a long time, but the NDP needs to make changes too and I don't want to give them my support.

But at the end of the day I truly feel Polievre will be Canada's worst prime minister, he has all the characteristics I hate in a politician and none of the leadership skills I'd want, so I have to make a pick from two bad options.

ETA: the strategy of "well they hate me, but I think they'll hate the other guys more" is such an insult to Canadians. If you don't in earnest think Canadians want you to lead them, you should not be a party leader.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 weeks ago

the strategy of "well they hate me, but I think they'll hate the other guys more" is such an insult to Canadians

That's the strategy Canadian politicians bank on. I don't think Harper was popular when he was elected - he just wasn't a Liberal. Same for Chretien - he wasn't a Tory.

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Yeah. Best case scenario I've felt would be that Trudeau resigns, the liberals bring in someone more popular that will effectively block Pierre Poppinfresh and hold onto a minority government.

Keeping PP from power isn't quite as imperative as Trump down south, but it's close. He's more Ron DeSantis than Trump.

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I think my best case scenario is that Jagmeet Singh steps down, the NDP quickly select a leader that relates to the working class (something like a Tim Walz type) and they sweep the election on a workers rights grassroots push.

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Best case scenario...yes. But likely...not very.

The only thing that the bankers and CEOs that keep the Liberal coffer's full, and the Oil & Gas Companies (and now Russia apparently) that keep the Cons coffer's full, is a mutual hatred for the working man and for unions.

It would take a herculean effort, and a charismatic leader that we haven't seen since Layton, to bring the NDP into Official Opposition range, let alone leading it all.

I agree that that would be the best possible version of Canada. But greed will never allow it to happen.

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, 0% chance this happens, but a man can dream, and vent online about our political situation.

[–] kat_angstrom@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I'm still daydreaming of a Rachel Notley federal run

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

If the NDP and/or LPC only run candidates in ridings they're likely to win, that could help them elect both more NDP MPs and more LPC MPs, possibly keeping PP at bay. Of course that won't happen and we're gonna get vote split instead.

[–] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

PP is aiming to rewrite the charter and is gunning for a full slate of conservative premiers.

[–] fourish@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

You can bet that when Kamala wins in the US the liberals will elect an indigenous female just because that’s what they do. As long as she’s competent no problem but if it’s a diversity hire, screw them.

I’m centre in general and either slightly left or slightly right depending on the issue. Rampant political correctness and nanny government pisses me off something fierce though.