The National Telegraph - Wyatt Claypool - August 05, 2026


Liberal Media Pushes Manipulated Poll to Attack Poilievre and Save Carney!


Episode Stats


Length

48 minutes

Words per minute

174.87

Word count

8,512

Sentence count

253


Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
00:00:00.000 The legacy media's spinning for the Liberal Party has gone from glaring to gratuitous.
00:00:06.500 Check out this headline from CTV News.
00:00:09.780 Carney has no obvious challenger among conservatives, new poll says.
00:00:15.480 You will not be shocked at all when I tell you they're referencing a garbage-quality poll,
00:00:21.940 Nanos, and it's being misinterpreted on top of that.
00:00:26.280 It's no secret the last month and a half has not been very good for Prime Minister Mark Carney's
00:00:31.460 Liberal government. The condo bailout, Gordie Howe Bridge situation, streaming tax, and the
00:00:37.700 Alto high-speed train have been lowering their support levels, as you would expect bad news
00:00:42.920 stories to do to the current government. Bad news stories tend to hurt your approval ratings,
00:00:48.400 but not in the nanos polls. In fact, the Liberals are at higher heights than they've ever been
00:00:53.600 before and that's why the legacy media wants to talk about it it's a great stupid fluff story to
00:00:59.920 distract from all the stupid things that the liberals have been doing and now cast the negative
00:01:05.600 attention on the conservatives because look how bad they're doing in the new nanos poll
00:01:11.200 let's look at that headline again carney has no obvious challenger among conservatives
00:01:17.200 we're actually going to look at the graphic they have in the article and you'll immediately know
00:01:22.240 what's wrong with it but before we get to that I just want to remind you guys if you like the show
00:01:27.300 make sure to leave a like on the video subscribe if you are not yet a subscriber consider hitting
00:01:32.180 the join button if you want to become a supporter of the channel and contribute to it monthly it
00:01:37.380 really helps make it all more sustainable for me and if you live in the provincial riding of Calgary
00:01:42.800 Curry sign up at the link pinned at the top of the comments if you want to buy a UCP membership
00:01:48.820 and support me in that UCP nomination. Anyways, now let's get into the article behind this headline.
00:01:57.280 This is the graphic that they show, which supposedly shows that Carney has no obvious
00:02:03.500 challenger. This is the most manipulated framing I've ever seen to try and pretend like Mark Carney
00:02:10.600 is untouchable right now. It says, which conservative can beat Mark Carney, Canadians say,
00:02:16.340 And the options here were none can defeat liberal leader Mark Carney, there is Stephen Harper, Pierre Polyev, and Doug Ford.
00:02:23.860 Now, 33% of people said none can defeat liberal leader Mark Carney.
00:02:28.360 16% said Harper, 15% said Polyev, and 11% said Ford.
00:02:34.220 And then I assume whoever didn't answer is just undecided, which frankly is probably the correct answer.
00:02:40.360 You can never know who can defeat another politician unless someone is, like, wildly unpopular.
00:02:47.500 But really, the headline from CTV News read that Carney has no obvious challenger.
00:02:53.740 Well, you can make it seem like he has no obvious challenger if you list a bunch of options
00:02:59.380 and it all pales in comparison to all the liberals who select none can defeat him
00:03:04.640 because this is not only conservatives taking the poll.
00:03:08.320 this is all Canadians, including Mark Carney supporters. Mark Carney supporters are obviously
00:03:14.000 just going to select Mark Carney in the poll. This is so stupid, it rejects even wanting to
00:03:21.920 be explained. Of course, 33%, which is not that high, is going to beat multiple other conservative
00:03:29.080 of options as the plural with the plurality of the vote if you add 16 15 and 11 together it's a
00:03:39.200 bigger number than 33 do i even have to explain this to nanos and ctv news it's a stupid question
00:03:46.880 it's a stupid question to generate a bunch of headlines for the carny liberals to make them
00:03:52.340 look untouchably good and you should just get on board and keep voting for them because everyone
00:03:57.120 else likes them and people don't even know who could defeat mark carney what anyways now we need
00:04:05.500 to look at some of the coverage uh from tv stations on this issue because it's not just articles
00:04:12.120 they have actually dedicated segments on the news to talking about this garbage quality nanos poll
00:04:19.360 that we're going to get into the details of in just a second here here is ctv news talking about
00:04:24.700 the poll. There's a new poll out this morning. Not good news for the conservatives. What's that?
00:04:29.980 Not good news for the conservatives. There's a new poll out today. Not good news for the
00:04:35.460 conservatives. Yes, and I could put out a poll today that just says the liberals are at 120%
00:04:41.740 in the polls. That's not good news for the other parties. Yes, but how credible is that poll
00:04:49.140 compared to other polls? I'm not somebody who just says polling is fake. Good polls are good
00:04:54.060 polls bad polls are bad polls you can't just believe in polling because if you know one poll
00:04:59.980 says plus 19 liberal like the nanos one does and one says plus four liberal only one of them can
00:05:06.940 be in the realm of reality those two numbers are too far apart so which one's better well i'll get
00:05:13.100 into that and just a little bit later in the video when we start talking about the nanos
00:05:17.180 poll in detail but you could probably guess which one i think is more credible well there's a new
00:05:23.180 pull out this morning not good news for the conservatives the nano survey asked canadians
00:05:27.480 which conservative politician could pose a challenge to liberal prime minister mark carney
00:05:32.740 with more on the findings let's bring in ctv's michael serapio he's joining us from our ottawa
00:05:37.680 bureau michael good morning to you so tell us what the survey found well as you say marcy and good
00:05:44.080 morning to you as well uh not great news here for the conservative party certainly not great news
00:05:48.860 for the Conservative leader Pierre Paulyab.
00:05:50.640 And, you know, a bit of background.
00:05:51.860 We know since the election that Mark Carney
00:05:54.540 has been leading a Canadian's preference
00:05:56.980 in terms of who should be prime minister.
00:05:59.180 And this poll really backs up
00:06:01.000 just how much of a lead Mark Carney has.
00:06:03.460 It doesn't.
00:06:04.720 And by the way, the preferred prime minister poll
00:06:06.880 that Nanos does is stupid.
00:06:09.620 Preferred prime minister is kind of a trick question
00:06:12.000 because many people are going to answer it in different ways.
00:06:15.320 Some people will answer it as,
00:06:17.060 well i want the party leader of the party that i usually vote for to be the prime minister other
00:06:22.420 people take it as a quiz question where they're they think that you're like asking them who should
00:06:27.380 be the prime minister and many people say well i guess the liberal you know liberal leader mark
00:06:32.420 carney because he has the most seats and then other people on the left will see it as who would
00:06:38.100 you want to block the conservative from winning because ndp and block voters know that their guy's
00:06:43.780 never going to be prime minister so they artificially end up selecting um they end up
00:06:48.980 selecting mark carney as their option not because he can actually be prime minister but just because
00:06:55.300 well it's really down to the two it proves nothing which is why it has absolutely no bearing on where
00:07:02.500 the parties actually sit in the polls but let's get back to him now trying to explain that those
00:07:07.140 preferred prime minister polls are backed up by this other garbage poll result it comes to
00:07:12.020 that evaluation as you say asking canadians who can actually beat mark carney take a look at uh
00:07:17.940 one major result out of this survey and to that i'm going to begin with the green bars to the
00:07:22.900 right of the screen you can see that the conservative who stands a better chance of
00:07:27.060 beating mark carney in the view of canadians is former prime minister stephen harper but only at
00:07:31.860 16 well only at 16 again it's not asking people to say select all of the conservative leaders that
00:07:41.140 you could you think could beat mark carney or could none of them the way you should do this poll
00:07:47.220 if you're not an idiot is by doing head-to-head polls do you like carney or harper do you like
00:07:52.980 carney or polioff do you like carney or ford that's how you should do it but nanos is not
00:07:59.460 in the public opinion game trying to accurately figure out what the public thinks on any given
00:08:04.900 issue or on the upcoming election they simply are trying to shape public opinion with completely
00:08:11.780 skewed questions it's not like nick nanos is just making up the results i don't think he's doing
00:08:16.900 that i think he knows his methodology sucks and the questions suck and it tends to generate these
00:08:22.900 very pro-liberal government type results nanos by the way like ecos which is run by frank graves
00:08:29.780 gets a lot of contracts from the federal government i doubt if this was the quality of
00:08:35.620 polling that they were doing for the federal government that it would they would ever get a
00:08:40.100 contract i think nanos and ecos do better work when they're working for the feds than when they're
00:08:45.860 doing this public opinion surveying they are simply doing these polling video like these like
00:08:52.180 these crazy polls in order to benefit the liberals why is it that the two pollsters that get the most
00:08:58.580 money from the federal government also put out the most absurdly pro-liberal or just generally
00:09:04.660 pro-left results. Who knows? Who could guess? Maybe it's the money. I don't know. Followed by
00:09:10.540 Pierre Polyev at 15 and then Ontario Premier Doug Ford at 11. But the big red bar that you see to
00:09:16.340 the left of your screen there, 33% of Canadians say that no one can beat Mark Carney, a very bad
00:09:24.760 evaluation of the current conservative leaders. It's not a bad evaluation. Think about it this
00:09:29.980 way. 33% is 10 less than people who actually voted liberal. So basically, we're saying that,
00:09:38.660 you know, three quarters of liberals think that Carney's unbeatable. Of course, they're going to
00:09:43.420 say that. It's kind of like a rah, rah, rah type of an option to select. And again, the methodology
00:09:49.360 of this poll is so bad, you cannot actually interpret anything from this because you have
00:09:54.260 simply broken up who conservatives think or who Canadians think could take on Mark Carney
00:09:59.300 between three other options that artificially reduces how much of a percentage each one would
00:10:05.120 get if it was just consolidated against Carney. But whatever I'm not a polling expert I'm just
00:10:11.500 somebody who can read numbers properly and I know what they're doing wrong. I'm not a mathematician
00:10:17.340 I took my two degrees in public policy and somehow I'd probably be able to put together
00:10:23.180 better polls than nick nanos who gets paid not only by the federal government to do polling but
00:10:28.840 i believe he also gets paid by ctv news to be their exclusive pollster which is why he ends up
00:10:34.040 you know always appearing on their shows to break down the new results and they always end up
00:10:38.720 writing articles on his new results first but now let's go in to the national numbers this is where
00:10:45.940 it just gets no other word for it completely retarded this is the latest result canada
00:10:52.780 nationally now nanos doesn't actually release regional numbers releasing regional numbers oh
00:10:58.980 my goodness that would require us to have integrity to release our regional numbers so we could
00:11:02.720 evaluate them but he is putting right now the liberals at 47 conservatives at 28 ndp at 13
00:11:12.000 and block at six. Now think back to the poll of which conservative leader could beat Mark Carney.
00:11:20.240 The numbers are artificially even lower because we have a sample that is 47% liberal and when you
00:11:29.340 add up all of the left parties it's nearly three quarters because of how badly scuffed this entire
00:11:35.900 poll is nanos the secret behind his polls is that he does a rolling poll that is when a pollster
00:11:43.820 will pull a new set of people every day or every couple of days and they will add that onto their
00:11:50.140 sample and bump off the oldest sample that they took maybe a week and a half ago nanos tends to
00:11:55.900 do i believe a weekly rolling poll so he has a new 250 people pulled every couple of days and he has
00:12:04.700 four days of sampling included in his poll 250 is nothing and a thousand added together is also
00:12:13.340 really not much of anything especially when it was done in four separate tranches it is so obvious
00:12:20.220 that his polls have a massive urban bias to them because this looks like what toronto is in other
00:12:28.460 pollsters numbers. I'm not the biggest fan of Leger. Leger has better polling methodology than
00:12:34.780 this. Liaison has better polling methodology than this. I would even almost somewhat recommend
00:12:41.100 Liaison. You just have to know that they're probably overpolling the Liberals by two to
00:12:45.760 four points and they're probably overpolling the NDP by one to two points. You can kind of unskew
00:12:50.560 their polls a little bit by kind of just always assuming that they're overpolling the left by a
00:12:55.360 couple points here and there. But Nanos is just all over the map. It defies any interpretation
00:13:01.660 whatsoever. Now I just need to bring up the Shreitiste numbers so you can see how wild the
00:13:08.440 swing is since the last poll that they put out. It is just nonsensical because what you'll see here
00:13:16.180 with these numbers, the change from their last poll is massive. And again, think about how small
00:13:23.980 the sample is since their last poll the Liberals have gone up by nearly two and
00:13:29.220 a half points two point four percent the Conservatives fell one point six
00:13:33.540 percent they're technically only at twenty seven point nine the NDP went down
00:13:37.740 by point six block went down by one point seven greens went down by point
00:13:41.560 seven and the People's Party went up by zero point six now when you're only
00:13:46.420 pulling 250 people at a time and it's swinging your overall consolidated sample
00:13:52.300 by this much that means in the latest 250 people that nick nanos pulled the conservatives didn't
00:13:58.220 even get 27.9 that's the average the latest 250 people surveyed was so bad that they fell to 27.9
00:14:08.220 which in fact means the conservatives probably pulled at like 24 or 25 only and the liberals
00:14:15.020 pulled at like 50. does he not look at his numbers after swings happen like this and says huh
00:14:22.140 maybe i should stop sucking at my job and actually do a proper poll of let's say 1500 people
00:14:28.060 and let's make sure it's postal code balanced like the greatest pollster in canada does janet brown
00:14:33.900 in alberta and saskatchewan she has some of the most accurate polls in the country because she'll
00:14:39.740 make sure that she doesn't just have a good calgary and edmonton sample and then the rest of alberta
00:14:45.100 she will make sure that she has people who live on ranches people who live on small towns people who
00:14:50.940 live in the center of calgary in apartments people who live in the suburbs she very nicely
00:14:57.420 balances her polls so she can weight them properly nanos is clearly just missing entire demographics
00:15:03.500 of people which means it doesn't matter if he tries to weight certain people up or down in his
00:15:08.460 polls it is just impossible he doesn't have certain types of people being pulled so it defies being
00:15:15.340 weighted entirely going back to the 338 website i need to show you how their polls have been
00:15:22.140 moving over time so you get my point here about how bad the last month and a half was for the
00:15:28.060 liberals about a month and a half ago at the start of july you know less than a just about a month
00:15:34.780 ago they had the liberals at 41 and the conservatives at 32 only a nine point difference
00:15:42.540 for nanos that's pretty good for the conservatives only being down by nine points
00:15:46.460 in their survey now that was a little bit after the condo bailout story hit
00:15:52.140 this last poll this 41 to 32 result that was at like i believe like july 3rd the condo thing
00:15:58.780 really started heating up in like the in the latter part of june around like you know june
00:16:04.540 25th 26th kind of timeline that's when that started hitting the newsstands and after that
00:16:10.460 The Conservatives are only behind by nine points.
00:16:13.220 Then we have the Gordie Howe Bridge situation, the streaming tax being completely cut, which
00:16:17.580 I don't like the streaming tax, but he did it basically to concede, you know, make Trump
00:16:21.880 happy in exchange for nothing, which you would think would hurt him with his base.
00:16:25.420 We have the Alto train being revealed that basically nobody living along the route surveyed
00:16:30.660 likes the train.
00:16:31.740 And many other things have happened.
00:16:33.500 You know, Gordie Howe Bridge, condo bailout, streaming tax.
00:16:36.940 We have the Alto train, many other fumbles here and there.
00:16:41.220 We have Bill C-9 that came out, the hate, the anti-hate law and whatnot.
00:16:45.580 It's nonsense.
00:16:46.900 And since then, the liberals have been skyrocketing.
00:16:50.300 47 to 28, a 19% lead.
00:16:56.340 Guys, this is what I call an unmotivated change in a poll.
00:17:02.760 That is a very key concept to learn.
00:17:04.680 what the difference between a motivated change is and an unmotivated change.
00:17:10.200 When you have big swings happening in a poll in a very short period of time,
00:17:14.640 and there's no news story that would justify it, it's probably just a bad poll.
00:17:20.000 You're telling me that in a month where Carney was caught lying about making a concession to Trump
00:17:26.860 in favor of getting nothing back in return,
00:17:30.360 that people are more likely to support Mark Carney and the liberals.
00:17:34.680 really I like abacus data and Angus Reid they don't always tell me numbers I
00:17:39.680 want to hear even now I'd love to hear the Conservatives are ahead they're not
00:17:43.380 ahead of neither of those polls now an Angus Reid they're only four points
00:17:46.680 down five months ago they had the Liberals leading by like 10 points
00:17:49.740 because it was a good news cycle for the Liberals there was some bad stuff
00:17:53.580 happening for the Conservatives so naturally the Liberals were elevated
00:17:57.180 same thing with abacus data they have them currently falling behind the
00:18:01.120 Liberals by about six points. But the changes in their polls make sense. They will go up slightly
00:18:07.420 after a good news cycle. Talk about the Liberals. After a bad news cycle, they'll go down. If the
00:18:12.220 news cycle persists, they'll keep going down. But they're not jumping up by five points in a week
00:18:17.060 and then falling by 10. That's a bad poll. That's not how public opinion works. Do you know anyone
00:18:23.080 in your life who changes their opinions that fast? No, not really. Politics happens around the
00:18:28.120 margins. Swing voters are not 80% of the population. It's like 30 to 40% of the population
00:18:35.860 is amenable to changing their votes and different portions of that group of people are more likely
00:18:41.740 to change it based on the news cycle. Like many people were considering voting conservative when
00:18:46.380 Justin Trudeau was around in his late stages because it was bad news stories for years and
00:18:52.340 years straight. Eventually some of the more stubborn swing voters started being willing to
00:18:59.160 come over and vote conservative or go over and vote NDP at that time. But now people are just
00:19:05.680 like in love with Mark Carney. It's not even if he had a good news cycle jumping up this much is
00:19:10.980 just absurd and it's a bad news cycle and he's still jumping up. This is just malpractice not
00:19:18.000 only by Nick Nanos in terms of his insane polling numbers, but it's also malpractice on in terms of
00:19:24.880 the media pretending that these polls are real. I forgot to mention this, but there was just a
00:19:31.940 really good comment made by Jasmine Lane I want to talk about in regards to that original CTV news
00:19:38.600 headline we looked at. I thought she had a really good way of summing this up. She says over top of
00:19:45.540 headline that reads Carney has no obvious challengers among conservatives she says
00:19:50.020 what a weird piece of piece to publish how is this relevant to anything happening in the country
00:19:55.380 we just had an election we presumably don't have one for a few years so why the unnecessary
00:20:00.660 he's the best compared to everyone else fluff pieces what are you trying to do to the public
00:20:05.460 what is the opinion perception you want to leave with people perhaps most importantly why
00:20:11.540 Why?
00:20:12.540 Absolutely.
00:20:13.540 You could say, well, there's a new poll out and we're covering it.
00:20:16.260 The thing is that CTV News hires Nick Nanos to do these polls.
00:20:21.360 He's partnered with them.
00:20:22.760 They probably have some control over what questions are being asked because they're
00:20:28.540 interested in covering the news that comes out of those questions.
00:20:32.120 So why was this question chosen?
00:20:35.500 And why was the question made in such a scuffed way that, let's say, even if Carney was massively
00:20:41.200 unpopular right now he might still be able to win that poll if he had a negative approval rating
00:20:47.540 there's a chance he could still win that poll simply because when you break up the who's the
00:20:53.500 best to beat him among multiple options people are going to choose one of multiple options they're
00:20:58.160 not just going to consolidate behind one choice because everyone acts as a hive mind and they
00:21:02.460 know it will look good in the poll if everyone chooses polyev that's just not how real life
00:21:06.480 works and they're manipulating that for headlines now i want to move on to some other coverage of
00:21:12.640 this because i thought there's many good takes and many bad takes in the aftermath of this
00:21:17.580 let's jump to another bad take and that is cp24 also covering new polls out again just seemingly
00:21:25.940 here to attack polioff they brought on scott reed to interpret this poll scott reed who is a partisan
00:21:32.320 liberal. Why is he the one that we are going to, to interpret whether or not a poll is good or bad
00:21:38.780 for Mark Carney and Pierre Polyev? He's obviously going to say it's bad for Polyev and good for
00:21:44.380 Carney. The leader of the official opposition, only 13% of Canadians say that they think he's
00:21:51.840 capable of taking on Carney. And fully a third say, no, there's no conservatives. I mean,
00:21:58.080 I'd make two points about this one it tells you about the current state of
00:22:01.860 the conservative party but it tells you about Scott Reed's ability to read the
00:22:07.140 last name is just ironic apparently Scott it was actually 15 percent but he
00:22:13.140 just says 13 percent because he can't be screwed to actually read the thing
00:22:16.500 properly and this really just tells you just how bad things are for the state of
00:22:20.840 the conservative party if you have me come on a new show to talk about how
00:22:25.560 bad the Liberals are. After a bad poll comes out, I'm not a fair spokesperson. If you want
00:22:36.500 to talk about the state of the Conservative Party, bring on a Conservative. And not a fake
00:22:40.540 Conservative like Fred DeLore. Bring on an actual Conservative who will point out the
00:22:45.060 flaws with the poll and how, when you actually look at all the other polls, the Conservative
00:22:48.940 support is fairly robust. The reason why they're having CTV News on, or Scott Reid on, and
00:22:54.960 the reason that they only use the nanos poll is because if they used any other poll or they had
00:22:59.400 anybody else on the the the viewers wouldn't be getting the perception that the conservatives are
00:23:04.160 dead so you might as well surrender over to the carny liberals and start voting for them to
00:23:08.500 and you know bandwagon for the for the true champion of the people everyone capable of taking
00:23:13.880 on carny and fully fully a third say no there's no conservatives i mean i'd make two points about
00:23:20.980 this one it tells you about the current state of the conservative party federally in the sense that
00:23:25.760 it has built this incredibly robust and intense base of support right they are polling at a higher
00:23:32.060 level than they have in the past without winning and what I mean by that is 35 to 40 percent of
00:23:39.580 people are saying I'm going to vote conservative yeah very intensely hard to get knocked off of
00:23:44.560 that but you have to be the alternative yeah and if Carney's going to get 43 percent of the popular
00:23:50.260 vote or 48 percent of the popular vote 38 or 35 ain't going to be good enough another piece of
00:23:56.820 data on this oh wow 35 is not going to be good enough to beat 38 wow 27 20 28 isn't good enough
00:24:05.660 to beat 47 wow if we just fart out bad numbers apparently the conservatives can't win if you
00:24:12.280 actually put the recent angus reed and abacus polls into a model to give a seat projection
00:24:18.420 it's actually not that bad for the conservatives one of them only puts the liberals a few seats
00:24:22.980 above a majority based on how the support is currently spread out as another critique of
00:24:28.440 that nanos poll you realize when you only pull 250 people in each rolling sample how many people
00:24:36.020 are we polling in pei or new brunswick or even alberta 250 people now considering the population
00:24:44.580 distribution in the country that means like a hundred of the responses are
00:24:49.140 going to be from Ontario maybe 65 of them are going to be from Quebec and
00:24:54.120 then the rest are going to be from the rest of the country you probably aren't
00:24:58.440 even pulling a single person from a territory and the Maritimes is probably
00:25:02.580 a little more hit-and-miss if you're even going to have more than five
00:25:05.040 respondents these are not credible polls you cannot slap four crap samples
00:25:11.340 together and think that you can now wait your way into a realistic result no you need people from
00:25:18.140 every walk of life before you pull you here's a great example here's a great thought experiment
00:25:23.180 can you do a poll of only women or only men well no nick nanos and scott reed probably would tell
00:25:28.700 you well no you can't just only pull women or only pull men because that's not who shows up
00:25:34.380 in votes in elections well this is almost as bad because we probably have effectively no rural
00:25:40.940 people in the nanos poll we probably have a over representation of urbanites and public sector
00:25:48.780 union workers and so let's say there's no farmers in the poll or there's only like
00:25:53.180 two you can't wait your way into a good result if you are literally fully missing certain
00:25:59.900 demographics of people and the voting differences between a rural canadian not in a small town
00:26:06.220 working as a public school teacher but a rural Canadian who owns a farm and a guy who lives in
00:26:11.840 downtown Montreal those are two completely different human beings and those people have
00:26:18.300 stronger voting differences than just between men and women and if you're missing the or the farmer
00:26:24.120 or you're missing many suburban conservatives there is no way of simply playing with the
00:26:29.880 weightings to try and make it a more accurate poll and even when you go into the nanos poll
00:26:35.260 Out of 1,000 respondents, 600 of them, or I think it was like 580, are above the age of 60.
00:26:42.920 So more than a majority of the people polled are above the age of 60, despite millennials being the biggest demographic group in terms of age.
00:26:53.340 But the legacy media wants to talk about how screwed Polyev is right now because this is what they're trying to do to get over the fact that it's been a bad news cycle for Carney.
00:27:04.020 That's really what's going on here.
00:27:05.780 No breathless coverage over the Angus Reid poll or the Abacus poll about how, oh my goodness, Carney's losing his lead.
00:27:12.580 This is really bad.
00:27:13.520 It used to be above by like 12 points three months ago.
00:27:15.960 Now he's ahead by four because that's what the Angus Reid poll showed.
00:27:18.740 And they have 4,000 person samples.
00:27:22.400 Their smaller samples are like 1,700.
00:27:24.700 They do a very, very good job.
00:27:26.920 And in fact, the recent abacus poll, I talked about this on the show on Sunday, interestingly shows that despite Trump and his administration being a very elevated issue in the minds of Canadians right now, the Liberals are not benefiting from it as much as they used to.
00:27:44.660 37% of people put it as a top three issue.
00:27:47.540 The last time it was as high as that, the Liberals were leading by 12 to 13 points in the abacus data poll.
00:27:53.780 now they're only leading by six despite it basically being at the exact same amount of
00:27:58.460 people who make that one of their top issues because the carny liberals have been fumbling
00:28:02.740 it so much that many people don't really see them as the reliable party to handle it doesn't mean
00:28:07.340 they're not voting liberal it's still probably a disproportionately good issue for the liberals
00:28:11.520 but if it's becoming less good of an issue for the liberals that will be showing some alarm that
00:28:16.920 will be sending up alarm bells inside of the liberal party but the last thing i want to talk
00:28:21.960 about in this video. So we've covered all that. Actually, although I want to get to one more take
00:28:26.440 from a conservative on this, and then I want to talk about something actually having to do with
00:28:30.500 Alberta here. Ryan Gerritsen here says, also in reaction to the CTV News headline,
00:28:37.600 our media machine, just like with Trudeau, will keep people believing no one could ever replace
00:28:42.520 him or the liberals. There's a reason they don't actually want to deal with Trump. It gives them
00:28:47.040 someone to blame for canadians living lives continuing to decline from the article quote
00:28:53.440 consumer confidence is flat there is no deal with the americans people are worried about paying for
00:28:58.800 the bills and they're very very grumpy nanos said quote but the thing is it looks like right now
00:29:05.520 they're not blaming the liberal government or mark carney for this it's almost like nick nanos is
00:29:11.120 telling on himself nick you say all that and then you look at your polling results and you don't
00:29:17.440 think when you see other polls showing the liberals declining that maybe you and your
00:29:22.000 really cheap crappy polling methodology messed something up maybe it's that you're not very good
00:29:28.240 at this now nanos this is going to sound contradictory during elections they're actually
00:29:33.280 quite a good firm because during elections they get their crap together and they have good quality
00:29:38.080 samples where they will pull several hundred people every single day, they
00:29:42.700 actually were not that far off of the last elections results. Now they
00:29:47.580 under sampled both the Liberals and Conservatives a bit, they over sampled
00:29:52.000 the NDP, but they actually use a better methodology during elections and they go
00:29:56.920 to this cheaper form between elections and I think they do that deliberately
00:30:00.600 because their cheaper methodology tends to overestimate Liberals and it's great
00:30:05.840 for pro-liberal propaganda but now we are going to move on to an alberta story now we've just
00:30:13.120 talked about how bad the legacy media is how they spin for the liberals and they are constantly
00:30:18.800 attacking the conservatives despite the fact they're in opposition and i don't think they've
00:30:23.200 done anything exactly wrong for a while yeah bad things sometimes happen to them like somebody
00:30:29.120 you know resigning from office to take a senate appointment from mark carney but it's not like
00:30:33.440 Kupolev and the conservatives have said or done anything particularly wrong and they got all this
00:30:38.580 negative coverage. I think that we should also hold YouTubers to the same standard. This is a
00:30:45.940 guy I have to talk about because it's just getting to the point of absurdity. All of the negative
00:30:52.320 attacks on Danielle Smith coming from certain people in the independence movement. Be pro
00:30:58.320 independence. It doesn't bother me at all. I'm not sensitive about it. But don't just make stuff up
00:31:04.580 to attack Danielle Smith because she's not pro-independence. I posted this last night and I
00:31:10.800 said a lot of criticism of conservative content creators and commentators is bad faith attacks
00:31:16.660 against people who are just not part of your political tribe. But as a YouTuber myself, I think
00:31:22.320 we should all normalize pointing and laughing at pro-independence slop like this stop now i am not
00:31:29.040 saying that pro-independence stuff is bad there are great pro-independence content creators out
00:31:34.000 there even if i'm not pro-independence i'd recommend you if you are or even if you're not
00:31:39.120 go watch cory morgan's channel he's really good he's really thoughtful and common sense and even
00:31:44.080 if i don't agree with his conclusions on the independence issue he is a very good advocate
00:31:49.200 for his side. Derek Smith unacceptable fringe is not. Can we all agree that this is genuinely just
00:31:56.880 him lying to his audience? His headline here is Daniel Smith lost her job with an AI Daniel
00:32:03.420 Smith holding up a bag that says bribes. We have Mark Carney government just collapsed from Derek
00:32:10.560 Smith. We have this one that says Daniel Smith is calling it Canada is finished. This one that says
00:32:17.060 Daniel Smith is replacing Pierre Polyev, where he actually asserts that Danielle Smith is trying
00:32:22.720 to take Polyev's job from him. No. No. And this has real-life consequences. I had somebody tell
00:32:30.840 me that when Northern Perspective was doing a live stream, there were people in the chat saying,
00:32:36.240 well, you know that Danielle Smith's gunning for Pierre Polyev's job and trying to undermine him?
00:32:40.380 No, she's not. And the only source they had for that was Unacceptable Fringe's video,
00:32:45.700 which is crap he just makes stuff up and i have an example for you here today he made a video
00:32:53.200 just today claiming that basically danielle smith was supporting or not doing anything about the
00:33:01.620 edmonton police's new hate uh campaign basically saying telling people to report hatred and they're
00:33:08.840 apparently going to prosecute or go after anyone saying things like certain people should be
00:33:14.060 deported, which is not hateful. I think criminals, welfare cheats, people here illegally, they should
00:33:19.920 be deported. That is not hateful. But because Danielle Smith is not pro-independence, even
00:33:25.960 though she let the referendum happen, he made a video called Daniel Smith Just Ended Her Career,
00:33:31.700 where only five minutes of the 16 minute and 28 second run was taking, using this video of Danielle
00:33:39.940 Smith talking about how she thinks that Alberta shouldn't pay any money enforcing bad federal
00:33:45.680 laws and then trying to tie this to what the Edmonton police just did basically five minutes
00:33:50.780 ago and blaming her for not doing anything about it, even though it literally just happened. Check
00:33:56.440 this out. Is that the federal government does have the power of criminal law. We have the power of
00:34:02.340 non-enforcement. And what that means is we choose our policing priorities and we choose our Crown
00:34:10.580 prosecution priorities. And I can tell you, if the intention behind it is to do what we're seeing in
00:34:16.000 the UK, where regular citizens are getting hauled off to prison because they post something online
00:34:23.460 that hurts someone's feelings, we are just not enforcing that. There's no way. That's not the
00:34:28.440 culture in Alberta. We reaffirmed in our Alberta Bill of Rights that free speech is protected,
00:34:36.040 and we think that's a government overreach. Okay, so just like her pipelines that she said
00:34:43.720 any government investment is a loss, she confirms here that the Alberta Bill of Rights protects
00:34:49.900 free speech, that they are not going to focus police efforts on hurt feelings reports. How is
00:34:57.220 that the police were able to obtain contracts for ai body cam scanners and flock cameras
00:35:04.340 if we're not going to enforce these kind of laws these draconian
00:35:09.620 overreach laws i'm sorry but that doesn't actually have anything to do with flock
00:35:15.380 cameras and body cameras those are like two disconnected thoughts you can dislike flock
00:35:20.660 cameras and AI scanning body cameras, I might also dislike them. I've heard about a lot of bad
00:35:28.000 things about flock cameras. That's not what this video is about. But the Alberta Bill of Rights
00:35:32.500 doesn't automatically stop that, nor does it automatically stop the Edmonton police from
00:35:37.100 doing something stupid. They have their own budget. They spent it on promoting report your
00:35:41.860 neighbor for hatred because they have a bad police chief and a bad mayor. How does this have anything
00:35:47.100 to do with danielle smith being bad i i literally i have i am without i cannot understand and this
00:35:54.540 has been consistent with derek constantly attacking danielle smith for things that don't make any
00:35:59.900 sense or are contradicted by her record but i'll let it keep going why is it that the edmonton
00:36:06.540 police force how come nobody from the alberta government has reached out to the edmonton
00:36:12.140 police force or put a stop to their uh bus wraps there because it happened like five minutes ago
00:36:22.380 you muppet it happened like a few days ago daniel smith probably maybe did call them i don't know
00:36:29.980 that even the edmonton police are already backpedaling on all this from all the either
00:36:34.540 the public pushback or maybe the alberta government told them to take it all down stop doing this
00:36:39.340 report your neighbor type garbage how is this a again a bad danielle smith story deserving of
00:36:47.260 the headline that danielle smith just ended her own career her online posts their hurt feelings
00:36:54.620 reports asking people to snitch on anybody with hurt feelings why is it that danielle smith has
00:37:00.940 not spoken up and said uh this is overreach because politics and government don't work like
00:37:07.500 a ww wrestling match derrick it's not that the edmonton police do something bad and then daniel
00:37:13.860 smith has a press conference calling andrew knack on the carpet and the edmonton police chief
00:37:18.080 it's just not how it works you don't react to things in five seconds because governments want
00:37:24.160 to have good relations even if they dislike what the edmonton government did and even if they're
00:37:28.760 going to push back and demand that they stop doing it if that's happening it's going to happen behind
00:37:33.300 the scenes. And by the way, the Alberta government, if Andrew Nack's police force start trying to
00:37:39.840 actually recommend people for prosecution, Alberta prosecutor could just say, I'm not doing it.
00:37:45.460 We're not spending any police resource on it. You can try and book someone. We're just going to let
00:37:49.380 them go and say that, no, we're not pursuing this charge. There's a lot of stuff going on here,
00:37:53.860 but we are for some reason hungry for a bad Danielle Smith story that we are using a footage
00:38:01.200 of her from months ago rightfully saying we're not going to enforce you know laws on hurt feelings
00:38:08.020 and now connecting that to her her inaction in like two days of a story breaking that in fact
00:38:15.840 broke on the weekend you know when things are less likely to actually happen do you think if
00:38:20.320 you ask danielle smith about this today she'd be like oh absolutely i support what the edmonton
00:38:24.400 police are doing or do you think she'd probably make a mild comment that kind of indicates
00:38:29.480 Andrew Knack, Edmonton police, get your act together and take this crap down.
00:38:35.120 She'll probably do that.
00:38:36.320 But she's not going to slap them across the face
00:38:38.960 because the Alberta government has to do things oftentimes with the city of Edmonton.
00:38:45.100 But this, again, has been consistent.
00:38:47.360 And you could think why it's being so mean.
00:38:49.720 Why it's attacking Derek Smith.
00:38:51.060 You guys should be nice to each other.
00:38:52.460 Guys, we go after people like Andrew Coyne, like Fred DeLore,
00:38:57.800 when they say far more mildly bad things about pure poly of the conservatives that are inaccurate
00:39:02.820 this guy has been attacking smith for things for months now simply basically because she's
00:39:10.180 not pro-independence hey there are many aspects of the mou on the pipeline i also don't like
00:39:15.060 i've been vocal about them despite the fact that i'm running for a ucp nomination
00:39:18.900 i call balls and strikes and this thing that he did recently i knew exactly where it was from
00:39:25.660 because I call balls and strikes and I remember where this footage was from.
00:39:30.300 He posted on social media on August 1st over this post that says,
00:39:35.900 Smith is all in on CO2 causing climate change and ready to hit net zero faster.
00:39:40.460 I'm done voting forever.
00:39:42.440 This is Doomer black pill slop.
00:39:46.660 This was posted on July 31st.
00:39:49.660 And Derek Smith said, what the actual hell has happened to Danielle Smith?
00:39:53.540 Now, I remember this clip because we can listen to it.
00:39:57.960 You can probably already, you already kind of know what she's going to say here.
00:40:01.000 But I'll give you the context in just a second here and how I know it.
00:40:03.860 I remember getting hit by Graham Thompson years ago in 2012 when I talked about how the science wasn't settled on climate change.
00:40:12.240 And I can tell you what I've come around full circle on that.
00:40:15.340 I am now probably the first and early adopter of thinking that we can hit a net zero target
00:40:21.500 and we can get there faster than anywhere else.
00:40:25.060 And I'll tell you why I believe that.
00:40:26.940 Now, we don't need to listen to the rest of the clip.
00:40:28.880 You get it.
00:40:29.860 Why does the podium say Daniel Smith on it?
00:40:33.480 Daniel Smith's not a narcissist who now requires that her office always have her name plastered
00:40:38.880 on anything she's speaking in front of.
00:40:40.660 No, this clip, I recognize it because it's from 2022.
00:40:45.340 And by the way, I criticized her at the time for saying this. I thought it was weak. I thought it
00:40:50.540 was this kind of weird meeting in the middle thing where, and by the way, she was advocating for
00:40:55.560 basically we don't need these taxes and emissions regulations. We should just be doing free market
00:41:02.800 things and allowing for emissions to go down more. She's doing this whole thing where I'm very pro
00:41:08.160 oil and gas, but I'm also going to say some climate changey things so that the legacy media
00:41:13.200 can't attack me i don't think it's a good tactic but i remember this and i even said i don't like
00:41:17.840 this at the time i think i thought it was like it was giving too much credence to climate alarmist
00:41:23.640 narratives when she said that but why in the world is derrick smith and other people pulling up a
00:41:30.400 clip of her speaking in 2022 during the ucp leadership race and asking what the hell's
00:41:37.440 happened to Danielle Smith? Nothing. Nothing's happened to her. In fact, you know why I don't
00:41:43.680 criticize her for things like this anymore? Because she has governed in the opposite direction.
00:41:49.380 She never said anything that was particularly pro-parental rights during the UCP leadership
00:41:54.120 race, which is why I was a little more skeptical of her. Doesn't really seem to have that social
00:41:58.280 conservative energy. As she's been governing, even though she is a social libertarian,
00:42:03.240 She's been governing more pro-parental rights, more pro-sociality conservative than you would have normally assumed that she would.
00:42:11.640 And so this is the thing I'm worrying about.
00:42:14.440 Keep the content creators you watch accountable in terms of logical consistency.
00:42:20.360 When you see headlines saying, oh, Daniel Smith just lost her or ended her career.
00:42:25.500 And it's him criticizing her over something that he just assumes she's not doing with the Edmonton police.
00:42:32.180 reevaluate how much you actually trust that creator by the way this derrick smith guy before
00:42:37.740 the conservative party convention uh implied that he wanted to fight me at one point so he's a very
00:42:43.540 swell dude i actually want to play that quote for you guys here i never played it at the time
00:42:47.680 because i was trying to be nice but this all this stuff is actually damaging to the conservative
00:42:54.740 party the ucp's chances of winning and in part i think that's the point these guys are trying to
00:43:00.100 hurt her because they're resentful of the fact that the independence movement is probably not
00:43:04.640 going to win the referendum. And I'm not trying to count the independence referendum out. I'm not
00:43:08.840 trying to just naysay people. People sometimes say, oh, Wyatt's not supporting independence,
00:43:13.100 so screw him. I'm not saying this to get a rise out of people. It's just true. Janet Brown,
00:43:19.100 the best pollster in the country, puts the support around 30%. Nothing to sneeze at. That's
00:43:24.720 substantial. It's just not there yet. And I think in part, the movement needs to be able to connect
00:43:29.540 with people who don't already support them. And when I see videos of like John Bolton criticizing
00:43:34.840 Dan Lloyd for having a creasy Alberta flag behind him and saying like, oh, that's why you can't trust
00:43:39.920 the conservatives. Oh my goodness, people, who cares if he has a creased flag? Make an argument.
00:43:45.880 Who is not supporting, what person who is not currently supporting Alberta independence is now
00:43:51.520 on board because you pointed out that Dan Lloyd, who is in charge of advocating for Canada for the
00:43:56.400 federal conservatives in the province of Alberta who's going to switch their vote because Dan Lloyd
00:44:01.460 had a creasy flag and you pointed out in a video but here's him before the federal conservative
00:44:06.120 convention threatening or you know implying he'd want to walk up to me and use some fighting words
00:44:12.060 or whatever at an event where he then proceeded to not show up and make an excuse for why he
00:44:17.740 couldn't actually you know attend anymore. Mario Zalaya it's going to be fantastic notice I didn't
00:44:24.280 say wyatt gaypool uh because i really don't understand what the hell he calls me wyatt
00:44:28.920 gaypool for some reason and other names even though he then accuses me of calling him names
00:44:33.820 the only name i remember calling him is grifter but whatever apparently but he tends to he tends
00:44:40.240 to accuse other people of what he himself does he's doing there but that's okay um i'm gonna
00:44:45.820 keep my distance from wyatt because the last time i i've actually never engaged with him on the
00:44:50.460 platform but uh he seems to have a habit of picking fights with people randomly and he looks like he's
00:44:56.600 about a buck 10 soaking wet the guy came out screaming at me on twitter once called me all
00:45:01.720 kinds of names in i didn't i didn't i called him a grifter at one point because he was being a
00:45:07.140 grifter salts hurled at me so i if i see him there i'm probably gonna say hey why don't you say that
00:45:12.540 to my face now that you're not hiding behind your monitor so yeah i'll be keeping my distance from
00:45:16.700 Wyatt um come in that event but I guess he's going to be there too if that's your thing if
00:45:22.300 that's your jam and then he proceeded to not actually show up to the event when that video
00:45:28.860 went out on social media because it looked bad buck 10 soaking wet I'm pretty sure I'm heavier
00:45:35.020 than 110 pounds I'm in fact 6'2 and I believe Derek is 5'2 that doesn't matter to me but for
00:45:42.000 some reason it matters to him and he thinks I'm like 4-2 or whatever I can't change I can't make
00:45:47.860 it make sense and so this is why I think that there needs to be not gatekeeping in an elitist
00:45:55.720 way but just some standards on what we actually accept on our side I don't like legacy media
00:46:03.980 coverage it's terrible his coverage of Daniel Smith has been similarly terrible recently and
00:46:10.540 And if you look at his comment sections, you'll see people being like, oh, Daniel Smith's
00:46:14.000 a traitor.
00:46:14.920 Oh, well, I'm not going to vote for the UCP ever again.
00:46:18.540 Over stories that are made up, over things where he's just making wild assumptions with
00:46:25.140 no evidence to attack her.
00:46:28.560 Why did she deserve this at all?
00:46:30.220 Like, here's one more thing I need to play, because this is something that the Smith government
00:46:35.020 felt they needed to correct.
00:46:36.500 and it was another misnomer that people like Derek Smith put out, saying that she was pro-equalization.
00:46:42.880 She is not. In a press conference with Mark Carney, she simply stated what the intent or what
00:46:48.820 the purpose of equalization should have actually been, and that the current system is bad. There
00:46:54.040 is now an exclusive interview with Danielle Smith from the Western Standard, and the headline here
00:46:59.760 says, Smith says, making every province self-sufficient requires a plan. And this was in
00:47:05.920 response to all the hysteria among pro-independence people saying she's now pro-equalization. No,
00:47:11.520 she is not. She simply said that equalization cannot be an escalator to prosperity. It can be
00:47:17.340 a minimum basic requirement top-up that, hey, we can't pay for the buses in PEI, or we can't pay
00:47:25.580 for road repair, or our health care system is in shambles, we need some more money. Okay, if we
00:47:31.060 transferred some of the struggling provinces some money to be able to pay for basic services,
00:47:37.080 I don't think that many people would have a problem with equalization. That, in fact,
00:47:40.380 happens in every country. Daniel Smith doesn't like equalization where we're paying to bring
00:47:45.800 all these provinces up to the public service spending average, which is just absurdly high.
00:47:50.980 We're basically paying for platinum plus benefits in many of these maritime provinces
00:47:55.760 simply to bring them up to an arbitrary average.
00:48:00.120 But she had to come out and basically clarify,
00:48:02.780 guys, I'm not pro-equalization.
00:48:04.820 Stop listening to social media grifters
00:48:07.380 cutting me out of context
00:48:09.300 and saying that I said something that I did not say.
00:48:12.780 Saying my position has now been reversed
00:48:14.320 when there's no evidence
00:48:15.380 outside of a five-second soundbite
00:48:17.400 that doesn't represent her.
00:48:19.440 Anyways, with all that being said,
00:48:21.680 thank you guys for watching.
00:48:23.280 Make sure to like, share, subscribe.
00:48:24.960 If you live in the riding of Calgary Curry, consider signing up at my website, pins at the top of the comments,
00:48:30.560 whiteclaypool.com, if you want to support me for the UCP nomination for that riding.
00:48:35.900 Anyways, so with all that being said, thank you guys for watching, and I'll see you all later.