Delusional： Trudeau cheerleader claims polls don't matter
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
188.10591
Summary
Greg McEachern on the CBC's Power and Politics and why the polls don't matter. Why do the polls matter? Why does anyone care about the polls? And why does it matter anyway?
Transcript
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,
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
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
00:04:01.820
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
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.