Trudeau Popularity - or not (various polling, etc.)

[Kirkhill]

For readers interested in approval ratings,

Historical rankings of prime ministers of Canada - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Ratings are up to date as of March 2024. ( Highest )."

"Ratings are up to date as of April 24, 2024. ( Lowest )."

Interesting rankings

2. Justin Trudeau — 65% (September 2016)[7]	5. Justin Trudeau — 28% (April 2024)[8]
3. Stephen Harper — 64% (March 2006)[6]	2. Stephen Harper — 23% (May 2013)[6]
6. Paul Martin — 56% (September 2004)[6]	8. Paul Martin — 41% (June 2005)[6]
1. Jean Chrétien — 66% (September 1994)[6]	7. Jean Chrétien — 36% (June 2000)[6]
9. Kim Campbell — 53% (July 1993)[6]	10. Kim Campbell — 48% (October 1993)[6]
5. Brian Mulroney — 61% (June 1985)[6]	1. Brian Mulroney — 12% (November 1992)[6]
10. Joe Clark — 32% (November 1979)[6]	3. Joe Clark — 24% (January 1980)[6]
8. Pierre Trudeau — 55% (September 1972)[6]	4. Pierre Trudeau — 25% (September 1982)[6]
6. Lester B. Pearson — 56% (January 1966)[6]	8. Lester B. Pearson — 41% (September 1965)[6]
3. John Diefenbaker — 64% (June 1958)[6]	6. John Diefenbaker — 34% (March 1963)[6]

Everybody comes in with a 60% approval rating +/- 5%
Everybody leaves much diminished.

Some things stand out:

Joe Clark - Didn't stand a chance. How did he get there?
Pierre Trudeau - Apparently became more popular after he had been in office for four years
Justin - Approaching Stephen Harper and Pierre Trudeau levels of antipathy

Brian Mulroney was in a class of his own.
Kim Campbell was actually quite popular but couldn't overcome Brian's negatives.

Diefenbaker and Pearson and Chretien managed to retain a following even after being turfed.

Apparently John Turner didn't rate despite outlasting Liz Truss (79 vs 49 days)

 

[dimsum]

Rex rips him again, not that Trudeau cares. However there are some good lines in this opinion piece:

Political cowardice, the fear of losing some of the Muslim vote has Trudeau and Joly responding to antisemitism by dusting off tattered platitudes (“this is not who we are as Canadians,” or some equally flaccid slogan crafted by a herd of consultants and speechwriters). He has no moral force to exert, he has no high presence in the world’s leadership, his flighty antics and frequent displays of incompetence have left him an isolate on the world platform. Essentially, his sad record internationally, his unintellectuality (his mind is not overclouded with ideas) and the obsessional tie to global warming fantasies (serious leaders may mouth the words these days, but the global warming juggernaut is bogged down) have combined to place him outside the adults who do rule the nations of the world. He is no one’s wise man.

Rex Murphy: Trudeau faced an essential moral test after Oct. 7. He failed it

Our loudly, proudly self-proclaimed first male-feminist prime minister was silent on the horrid tortures and rapes of Israeli women.

nationalpost.com

Rex has been in the CPC orbit for a while now, but suggesting that any political party’s slogans and sayings are not crafted by consultants and speechwriters is laughable. There is zero chance that Poilievre just riffs his slogans in the HoC or elsewhere.

 

[QV]

Yea

I'm not sure, @QV, what does it say?

Since your such a smart cookie draw your own conclusions.

 

[Lumber]

Since your such a smart cookie draw your own conclusions.

Well I think it says that Canadians interests and expectations are flexible, and that their assessment of a leader changes over time, based not solely on the actual performance/competency of the PM, but by their specific expectations at the time.

But I think you're saying that Canadians at large are dumb, because they had the stupidity of thinking at one point that Trudeau was a good leader.

 

[QV]

You're not entirely wrong. Dumb is only part of the description I'd use for any person who thought, at any point, JT was a solid choice for leader of this country.

 

[dimsum]

Since your such a smart cookie draw your own conclusions.

Well I’m a self-described idiot so please elaborate.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Well I think it says that Canadians interests and expectations are flexible, and that their assessment of a leader changes over time, based not solely on the actual performance/competency of the PM, but by their specific expectations at the time.

But I think you're saying that Canadians at large are dumb, because they had the stupidity of thinking at one point that Trudeau was a good leader.

Not a majority of Canadians at large. 39%, 33% and 32% respectively in the last 3 elections were stupid enough to think he was a good leader.

 

[QV]

Well I’m a self-described idiot so please elaborate.

With all the public information surrounding scandal after scandal, it takes no great mind to come to a personal conclusion on whether someone made a bad judgement call or not. You can decide that for yourself.

 

[Remius]

Blaming voters says a lot about the ones doing it.

I’m sure the smart cookies can figure that out.

 

[QV]

If not the voters, who is responsible for who is elected?

 

[Remius]

Politicians can be blamed for being stupid and be blamed for having stupid policies or making stupid decisions.

Voters should never be blamed for being stupid for their democratic choices.

 

[mariomike]

Voters should never be blamed for being stupid for their democratic choices.

"One of these days the people are going to get good government - and they are not going to like it."

 

[QV]

Voters get the government they deserve. If a plurality choose bad government, well... that's pretty stupid, isn't it?

 

[Good2Golf]

For readers interested in approval ratings,

Historical rankings of prime ministers of Canada - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Ratings are up to date as of March 2024. ( Highest )."

"Ratings are up to date as of April 24, 2024. ( Lowest )."

So…for however it’s measured…1% (absolute), 0.64% (relative) more than….Steven Harper.

Some statisticians would assess that as being inside the margins of error…

I take Nik Nanos’ rating for more worth…and it isn’t 65% of (some) Canadians.

 

[daftandbarmy]

"One of these days the people are going to get good government - and they are not going to like it."

"Every country has the government it deserves."

- Joseph de Maistre

 

[Remius]

Voters get the government they deserve. If a plurality choose bad government, well... that's pretty stupid, isn't it?

You are making the false assumption that people choose bad governments. Using your own metrics of what that is. There are way more complexities to why and how people vote than simply being stupid or purposefully voting for a party and or politician that ends up becoming bad.

One can disagree with various positions and politics without it having to be labelling those who agree with those positions as stupid.

 

[Fabius]

People do choose though, and although it may be unfair to label their choices as stupid we can’t ignore that choices have consequences.
If a voter has chosen to support and prioritize decriminalizing certain drugs over sound fiscal policies that is their right.
However I would argue that they need to own responsibility for the economic consequences of their decision, getting upset that a politician did exactly what the voter supported repeatedly due to their own values is foolish.

 

[dimsum]

People do choose though, and although it may be unfair to label their choices as stupid we can’t ignore that choices have consequences.
If a voter has chosen to support and prioritize decriminalizing certain drugs over sound fiscal policies that is their right.
However I would argue that they need to own responsibility for the economic consequences of their decision, getting upset that a politician did exactly what the voter supported repeatedly due to their own values is foolish.

Specifically about the decriminalizing aspect, since I have family in BC, one overlooked aspect was that the policy was supposed to be one of a bunch of policies to support the situation. The other ones being (I believe) increased social support, etc.

Those weren’t implemented for various reasons so what came out was the current situation. Kind of like procuring something without the maintenance part, and wondering why we can’t fix the stuff we bought.

 

[FSTO]

Specifically about the decriminalizing aspect, since I have family in BC, one overlooked aspect was that the policy was supposed to be one of a bunch of policies to support the situation. The other ones being (I believe) increased social support, etc.

Those weren’t implemented for various reasons so what came out was the current situation. Kind of like procuring something without the maintenance part, and wondering why we can’t fix the stuff we bought.

Lack of followup, preplanning or measurement of outcomes is a favourite refrain from "The Line" regarding many Canadian government actions. It's like, "we are the good people and all of our ideas and policies are brilliant! So why would we measure the effectiveness of our brilliance when it is already so brilliant!!!"

 

[Lumber]

People do choose though, and although it may be unfair to label their choices as stupid we can’t ignore that choices have consequences.
If a voter has chosen to support and prioritize decriminalizing certain drugs over sound fiscal policies that is their right.
However I would argue that they need to own responsibility for the economic consequences of their decision, getting upset that a politician did exactly what the voter supported repeatedly due to their own values is foolish.

"The people called this upon themselves....We didn't force the people. They gave us a mandate, and now they are paying for it."
#s