The National Telegraph - Wyatt Claypool - Delusional： Trudeau cheerleader claims polls don't matter

00:00:00.000 I remember back when Pierre Polyev first became the federal Conservative Party leader,

00:00:05.560 there were liberal talking heads all over the mainstream media claiming that Canadians don't

00:00:10.780 like him and he's too extreme. And they would cite polls to show you that Pierre Polyev was

00:00:16.060 actually a very bad Conservative Party leader, even though he'd only been leader for like a

00:00:20.520 couple of months by the point they started harping on him. And obviously not enough people even knew

00:00:25.000 who he was to decide whether or not they liked him or not. You'll get a lot of liberals when

00:00:29.520 the Conservative first becomes the leader of the party that just default hate them because they're

00:00:34.200 the Conservative, but people in the middle will take a lot longer to decide whether or not they

00:00:38.880 like them or not. These days, Polyev has a very good approval rating and he's not just leading the

00:00:44.360 Conservatives by one or two points. Back when he was first leader, it would kind of shuffle back and

00:00:48.540 forth between whether the Liberals were up by a bit or the Conservatives were up by a bit. And now

00:00:53.500 the Conservatives are leading by like an average of 20 points in most polls that are not conducted

00:00:59.460 by Frank Graves. And now suddenly all of these same liberal talking heads from these mainstream

00:01:06.140 media shows are saying polls don't matter. Polls don't matter. Actually, Justin Trudeau is going

00:01:10.980 to win Canadians back over with his commitment to principle on the carbon tax. Absolute laugh

00:01:17.460 considering the carbon tax is probably one of the top three reasons that people don't like Justin Trudeau

00:01:22.480 anymore. And I think a great example of this is Greg McEachern on, I don't know, the CBC show Power

00:01:29.640 and Politics. That might be a CTV show. I don't really keep up too much with what's going on with

00:01:34.220 CBC. This is also a show that about a year ago, I think I cited as one of the dullest shows I've ever

00:01:40.200 seen in my entire life. There are three consultants here talking about politics and none of them can ever

00:01:46.340 have really strong opinions on anything because they either work for a strategy organization or they work for

00:01:52.480 and can only read talking points. You know, you have Fred Delori here representing the conservatives,

00:01:57.880 the worst conservative campaign manager since Jenny Byrne to be leading a national campaign. He was

00:02:05.320 the one that was leading O'Toole's campaign. Jenny Byrne was the one who was leading the bad 2015

00:02:10.160 campaign. But, you know, what can you do? But I want to get to Greg McEachern's comments right here

00:02:17.280 because he's so delusional that in trying to defend Justin Trudeau and say the polls don't

00:02:22.880 matter, he actually proves just how bad of a position Justin Trudeau is in. Take a look at this.

00:02:29.300 Greg, it feels like they must have something. They've done four or five confidence functions

00:02:32.260 now, right, to try to have an election. You must have a platform ready to go, right? Or is this just

00:02:36.900 theater? It may be theater. I mean, there, I do believe that the conservatives have been very

00:02:42.580 dependent and their confidence is very much based on polling. And we've seen in the United States

00:02:48.680 that events can change the dynamic really, really quickly. You know, when I was in Nova

00:02:54.540 The funny thing is he says that saying, oh, they rely so much on polling. But down south, we've seen

00:02:59.640 that events can shift things quite fast. I'm like, yes. And do you know how we indicate whether or not

00:03:05.740 events have shifted things? Through polling. Yes, not all polls are accurate, but polling tends to be

00:03:12.320 better than guessing overall, unless you're like really in touch with the community. Plus also,

00:03:17.500 by the way, Kamala Harris is actually still losing to Donald Trump in the US, especially in the

00:03:23.540 Electoral College. The most accurate pollster actually still has Trump up two points on her. So yeah, 1.00

00:03:30.100 polling, you know, polling is decently accurate. Polling is a reliable tool, but

00:03:35.720 Greg McKecker in here likes to kind of, you know, care about polling when it suits him. Because he

00:03:42.260 was one of the original people saying that Polly was going to have a hard time getting moderates to 1.00

00:03:46.460 vote for him. And lo and behold, now the conservatives are having polls where they're winning 45, 46%

00:03:53.400 of the national Canadian electorate. That's not a region where they're doing well. That's the country

00:03:59.160 that they're doing well in.

00:04:01.820 Scotia, a couple of times, the dynamic really, really quickly. You know, when I was in Nova Scotia,

00:04:07.940 a couple of times over the summer, I had a lot of people come up to me and say, you know, Greg,

00:04:14.260 your guy has to go. But boy, I don't like that other guy. And I think from what I'm told of,

00:04:19.840 you know, the people who work in the focus group world in Canada, they hear the same thing.

00:04:24.880 And we know we've seen some polling that have said that those people who are aware of who the

00:04:30.940 conservative leader is, about half of them have some issues with him. This would be the time for

00:04:37.420 perhaps the liberals to start doing some ads. Perhaps we'll see them this fall about that.

00:04:42.220 Now, I don't think Greg here even realizes he just owned himself. So he's saying when I traveled to

00:04:49.600 Nova Scotia, a default liberal province, that presumably he's having liberal supporters walk

00:04:56.600 up to him and say, Greg, you know, I don't, I think your guy needs to step down by still don't

00:05:01.400 like pure Polyev. Because who's going to recognize Greg McEachern, other than default liberals? Does

00:05:07.660 he have a lot of hardcore conservative friends? I really doubt it, because obviously hardcore

00:05:11.580 conservatives like Polyev, just look at the polling. And I know Greg McEachern saying the polls

00:05:16.980 don't matter. But I don't believe him. I actually think, you know, he might be lying here. He's just

00:05:22.460 saying whatever he can to get himself through this TV segment and not completely embarrass himself.

00:05:27.780 But he embarrasses himself anyways. So he has a partisan liberal walk up to him say, Greg, I think

00:05:33.660 that your guy needs to step down by still don't like Polyev. And it's like, okay, so Greg is admitting

00:05:38.960 that even like liberal supporters, the people, the 23% of people still voting liberal, still saying

00:05:46.920 they're going to vote liberal, don't even like the leader running the party. That's terrifying.

00:05:52.400 That's horrible. Maybe this guy is like a soft conservative now, but he doesn't like Polyev,

00:05:58.080 and maybe the liberals can win him back. I really doubt it. I think Greg is like proving too much

00:06:03.180 through his story. He is proving that the liberal hardcores don't like Justin Trudeau. And he's

00:06:09.560 acting like, well, they don't like Polyev, so we have an angle here. I'm like, an angle with a voter

00:06:14.200 you should already have. That's the problem. The issue is, is that, you know, the enemy who's kind

00:06:20.120 of in the gates right now, we see this in Montreal. Yeah, the conservatives are definitely not going to

00:06:25.220 win the by-election in La Salle, Amar, Verdun. But the fact that it's even up for grabs for the

00:06:31.180 Bloc Québécois and the NDP means that the liberals have a lot of issues with their own people

00:06:36.960 potentially going Bloc in Quebec or going NDP in other regions if they're not willing to go

00:06:42.040 conservative. And most of them seem to have been willing to go conservative. Polyev, as much as he

00:06:48.000 wants to say that, you know, people don't really like him, the approval rating charts show that he's

00:06:53.680 the only leader right now who has a solid approval rating. I don't know what Blanchet's approval rating

00:06:58.820 is in Quebec. I don't doubt it's probably decent because he gets to play to a very specific niche

00:07:03.560 audience. But the point still stands. Out of all the actual real national leaders, the only one who

00:07:10.740 people actually like more than they dislike is Pierre Polyev. Also, here's another thing with the

00:07:16.660 Conservative Party. The Conservative Party runs, is not a personality-based party. People really like

00:07:22.680 Pierre Polyev. He has a much bigger personality compared to previous Conservative leaders. But the great

00:07:28.320 thing with the Conservative Party is that we've never been a, I don't want to be too harsh here

00:07:33.800 because I don't want, I don't like overheated rhetoric, but we're not a cult-like party where

00:07:37.580 you have to like Justin Trudeau to vote for them. That's the big problem for the liberals. If you don't

00:07:43.400 like Justin Trudeau, as I've repeated so many times in the past, if you don't like him, you're not even

00:07:47.740 thinking about voting liberal. There's a reason why in this last approval rating poll that Abacus Data did

00:07:54.160 that Justin Trudeau has a 22% approval rating. Do you know what the liberals got in that national

00:08:00.480 poll? 23%. The liberals polling is always tightly packed around what Justin Trudeau's approval rating

00:08:09.140 is. Pierre Polyev has an approval rating of like 39% or so, but his party's polling at 45%. You don't

00:08:16.340 have to love Polyev to say, yeah, I think the carbon tax is stupid. Yeah, overall taxation needs to go down,

00:08:21.720 regulation is too much, immigration is too high. You know, we shouldn't go after law binding gun 1.00

00:08:26.420 owners. You can have very diverse opinions within the conservative party. You can be a little bit

00:08:31.860 more on the red Tory side. You can be on the SOCON side like I am. I'm a social conservative and you

00:08:36.860 can exist in the party and you can like or dislike the leader, but still generally like the policy

00:08:41.980 agenda. The problem with the liberals is that all of it is contained within the personality of Justin

00:08:47.640 Trudeau. Even the NDP, as crappy of a leader of Jagmeet Singh is, there are wings to the party so

00:08:54.700 that you cannot like the direction that Singh is exactly going in, but you can generally still vote

00:08:59.840 for the package of policies that the NDP represents. This is the issue with Justin Trudeau's leadership.

00:09:06.280 He's made the party so much about him that the party doesn't know what to do once he is their least

00:09:11.500 profitable asset. He's their only asset. That's the big issue here. And Greg McEacher, and to get back

00:09:18.080 to him, one, he is like the most obnoxious person I've ever seen on Twitter. But other than, like,

00:09:25.260 aside from that, maybe it's that insulting people wasn't a good strategy because Greg's saying that

00:09:31.820 the liberals just need to get on the horse and start running ads and going after pure poly of directly.

00:09:37.040 It's like, guys, if you think that this is going to be a personality election, you're sorely mistaken.

00:09:43.740 It's like in British Columbia right now. David Eby, the BC NDP premier, is falling all over himself.

00:09:50.840 He is absolutely fumbling and flip-flopping on all of his policies because he tried the conservatives

00:09:57.000 are extreme angle. And one, it's not accurate. And two, people said, I don't care. I can't afford

00:10:04.300 groceries. I can't afford rent. And you're attacking John Rustad and the BC conservatives because he

00:10:09.840 doesn't think we're going to be underwater in 10 years. He's not a climate alarmist. Good. Good.

00:10:14.560 He cares about the issues I care about. And so now David Eby is trying to pivot on every single one of

00:10:19.600 his policies because he's realizing it's a policy-based election. People in a referendum-style

00:10:25.020 election, like it's happening right now, people don't like the current government and they want the

00:10:29.720 opposite. So now David Eby is trying to change himself as much as possible in these last 38

00:10:36.120 days before the election in order to pretend like he might have a clue about what residents want.

00:10:43.600 I don't think it's going to work, but that's what we're dealing with right now.

00:10:47.720 And since I'm rambling here and I assume a lot of softer viewers of the show who just want the

00:10:53.640 headline points I'm making probably have already clicked off here, I just wanted to bring up this one

00:10:58.600 thing that happened today. Maybe this seems like very random, but I just wanted to talk about

00:11:04.700 the lying with statistics because this happened and it doesn't deserve its own video, but just bumped

00:11:10.900 into a leftist on Twitter today who made this claim, and I want to find it right here. It might be a

00:11:19.340 little bit difficult for me to find, but these people who are talking about how because David Eby today

00:11:24.540 has flip-flopped now in favor of involuntary care treatment for drug addicts, and he's one of these

00:11:31.380 leftists who's now like, oh, this is a mistake because involuntary care is very bad. He posted this

00:11:37.240 and it shows why so many people, younger people, vote left. It's because they don't understand real

00:11:45.700 life very well. And it's not an age thing. You can be 15 and you could be very knowledgeable and have a

00:11:53.060 common sense sort of wisdom. But this is why so many people who are young vote NDP still. It's

00:11:58.540 because they don't know what real life is like. So he posted this to me in response to me saying that

00:12:04.520 involuntary care is a good policy, but the way David Eby is serving it up, even he's not really

00:12:09.540 proposing a good version of it. He's basically saying once you're fully cooked, once you actually

00:12:14.700 are so damaged by illicit drugs, the government will take you into involuntary care, which is the

00:12:19.620 dumbest way of doing it possible. You should be taking people in as soon as they are so addicted

00:12:23.980 that they can't follow basic laws. If you're camping on the side of the street, you should be

00:12:27.820 basically forced into involuntary care because this person is not even capable of following the

00:12:32.980 law anymore because you couldn't say, can you move your stuff over there? They can't do it unless you

00:12:36.380 force them to do it. But this person then claims the mortality rate was estimated as 4.4 times higher

00:12:43.360 than the general population. He's talking about four years after you exit involuntary care, you are

00:12:49.780 4.4 times more likely to die than members of the general public in your same age demographic.

00:12:56.820 So people in their 40s are very unlikely to die from natural causes. But those who are in their 40s

00:13:03.000 who have just left involuntary treatment for drug addiction are 4.4 times higher, more likely to die

00:13:09.040 than people in that age bracket. And I'm thinking, yeah, because they, you know, used to smoke crack

00:13:16.900 for like years and years, like it might not be because the voluntary, the involuntary treatment

00:13:24.340 is hurting them. You know, I feel like I'm going into a Norm Macdonald bit here. It's like, you know,

00:13:29.320 I didn't think that, you know, the involuntary treatment was bad. I thought the, you know, smoking

00:13:33.820 meth and injecting heroin between your toes was the real tragedy here, not the, you know,

00:13:38.680 forcing people to take a needle out of their arm or whatever. I'd love if I could do better

00:13:43.720 impressions. But this is an actual thing. And this went on for a while, this argument with this person

00:13:49.060 earlier today, where they're like, you know, they're not understanding that yes, when you've

00:13:55.720 made bad choices, like injecting smack into your eye, and I'm being hyperbolic for fun. Obviously, you're

00:14:01.940 going to have a higher mortality rate even after you get off drugs. What do you think the mortality rate

00:14:06.460 is between the people who stayed on the street using heavy, illicit opioids, and the people who

00:14:13.060 then took involuntary treatment and left it, and then maybe or maybe not perished because they had

00:14:19.240 severe damage to their heart or lungs or kidneys or liver? That's the big issue here. Would it,

00:14:24.800 were they better off than staying on the street or, or going through involuntary treatment? But you have

00:14:30.880 this constantly from people on the left who don't know how real life works. So they cite you their

00:14:36.600 study that shows that whatever you believe in is actually bad. It's like when people come up to you

00:14:43.300 online, people who I would describe as terminally online, if you've never heard the term, it's just

00:14:48.380 describing somebody who spends so much time online, who is just so online that they don't know really

00:14:55.380 almost how to like navigate real life anymore. That online is all that matters. It's like people

00:15:00.660 who think that online political debates are the end all be all when most normal middle class people

00:15:06.620 could care less about the stupid culture war happening on X or Facebook. But you'll have these

00:15:12.620 people who are like, you know, incarcerating criminals is bad, or it doesn't work because after

00:15:18.520 they leave prison, they're still this percentage likely to recidivize and they're going to commit

00:15:24.440 another crime. And it's like, yeah, they're criminals. They've already self selected themselves

00:15:29.400 as willing to commit illicit acts. So it shouldn't be that surprising that after they leave prison,

00:15:36.000 they are still somebody who is likely in some cases to commit a crime. The good thing is that those who

00:15:43.120 leave are less likely to commit crimes than those who have not been arrested before who are currently

00:15:48.080 committing crimes. That is the actual thing here. You have so many socialists who pretend that because

00:15:53.120 your program doesn't result in perfection, then why try in the first place? Why try? Because it's

00:15:59.140 better than not trying. And it leads to better results. Perfect results, not on this earth. But

00:16:04.820 what it is, is better. And you know, it's insane that I have to actually explain this to people. At

00:16:10.560 one point, the guy I was arguing with actually said that, well, you find me the statistics that prove

00:16:15.640 involuntary treatment works, but I'm just going to assume I'm right for now. I'm like, wow,

00:16:19.800 that's, you know, that that's a wise phrase to use. I'm just going to assume I'm right.

00:16:25.160 Don't do that. The funny thing is that they're like, oh, you didn't read the study fully.

00:16:29.080 I don't need to read your study. The top line result doesn't make sense for real life.

00:16:34.860 Yeah. 4.4 times more likely to die or have a higher 4.4. Yeah. 4 times higher mortality rate than

00:16:41.840 the general public. You know, thank God it's not higher after they leave involuntary care. That's

00:16:48.080 actually seems to be a pretty good statistic because people in their 30s and 40s are very

00:16:52.760 unlikely to die during those years of their life from natural causes. And 4.4 times higher is actually

00:17:00.360 not that much of a chance of dying. Better than injecting, you know, like fentanyl-laced like

00:17:06.940 meth into your system. Whatever. Anyways, this has gone rambly enough. So anyways, if you want to

00:17:13.300 support this show, you guys can go to the description and click on the Give, Send, Go link,

00:17:18.000 you know, throw me 20 bucks or whatever you want. Don't do it if you don't have the money.

00:17:22.240 But we have this billionaire from China suing us. He's a big developer in China and Canada.

00:17:27.840 And he's suing us for defamation because like in 2020, it's been a while, we had a guest writer

00:17:33.220 write an article about him, not even about him, about Aaron O'Toole taking money from billionaires who

00:17:38.340 were connected with the CCP. And we cited when we mentioned this guy, a Globe and Mail article that

00:17:44.180 was written a year and a half before we had even published our article mentioning him. And it was

00:17:49.660 all about all of his CCP connections. He literally sat on an advisory board to the Chinese People's

00:17:56.100 Congress. But it was rude for us to even mention that the Globe and Mail had uncovered this

00:18:01.000 a long time before. But he didn't want to sue the Globe and Mail, or at least we have no evidence he

00:18:05.720 tried to sue the Globe and Mail, even though we requested it, I believe almost a year ago,

00:18:10.540 he still hasn't been able to show us he even did anything to the Globe and Mail. But because he was

00:18:14.680 too scared to sue them, he's suing us instead. And he wasn't expecting that we're actually going to

00:18:20.000 fight back. So $32,000 later, we're still fighting it out. And now, at least from my perspective,

00:18:25.920 he's now running away from us, because he knows that we're getting towards the point where I could

00:18:30.640 probably file for summary judgment or something like that. And I'd probably win. I actually believe

00:18:37.960 that if I win, I might get double or triple my cost back because of how egregious this case was.

00:18:44.420 It's how obviously frivolous it was. So if you want to contribute anything, that's the story. I don't

00:18:49.260 usually tell the story because in Canada, it's buried deep enough in this video where it doesn't

00:18:53.300 really matter what I say. Once a lawyer is not going to watch hours of my content to see if I

00:18:58.680 mention the guy suing me, his name's Ted Joe. But if you mention somebody, even in factual ways during

00:19:04.920 a case, they'll just start filing a bunch of motions or they'll start basically claiming that

00:19:09.880 you've been malicious and you continue to defame them, even though what you're saying is entirely

00:19:14.440 accurate. Even if you're trying to fundraise for your legal costs and you're having to mention

00:19:19.360 the general basics of the case, they'll still try and hit you for malicious intent for even saying

00:19:26.000 those things. It's absolutely ridiculous. I've seen people get messed over for even talking about

00:19:30.920 their case before because the Canadian justice system is absolutely insane. But so far, the judges

00:19:36.000 we've had have been very good. One of them even rewarded me $1,800 at one point because the guy

00:19:41.240 wasn't even filing his evidence and it would have been like two and a half months late on it. It was

00:19:45.560 crazy. Anyways, so that's it for me. I will see you guys in another video. Hopefully, I will keep it

00:19:52.920 more contained. Whereas this was, I don't feel like a super substantive video, but I just wanted to

00:19:58.640 talk and ramble. This is basically my radio show. So that allows me to get all my thoughts out. And

00:20:04.920 you know, I don't want to go into real life and start rambling at people that don't know me. So

00:20:08.840 at least I come here and I can ramble at you people. Have a good one.

00:20:12.920 Bye.

The National Telegraph - Wyatt Claypool - September 15, 2024

Delusional： Trudeau cheerleader claims polls don't matter

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript