Gutes Gespräch – Ist es wirklich ein neuer Pierre Poilievre?
Gutes Gespräch – Ist es wirklich ein neuer Pierre Poilievre?
7 Kommentare
Who cares? The new Poilievre is going to lose as badly as the old Poilievre. I know that pundits can’t be complete doomers but there’s nothing that the CPC can do that will result in them forming government. Nothing. Even if they recruit a moderate leader and craft policies minted in gold, Carney is simply too popular.
What we need is a leader in Canada that answers the phone and the opportunities (and threats) now.
Not a year late like PP has.
„What trump said true or not is not acceptable “ (a good 12 months after Trump said it)
– PP there I said it!
Uff right then – its new me here , I am off to fly to EU to look more statesman ish! Wait who are we going to meet there ? doesn’t matter, make them wear a suit and look important.
This showed used to be good when they had Rob Russo on, but Bruce Anderson is too much of a partisan Liberal, and literally works for Carney, which takes away from what the show should be.
It won’t hold for long. When he pivots to a more moderate role it usually lasts a few weeks then he falls back into the same old pattern.
I think it’s too soon to know if it’s a ’new‘ PP. But the bigger issue, I feel, is the maple maga base that PP had been catering to up until now. Even if PP tries to be more conciliatory, people can’t forget who represent the driving force of his party. No one believes the moderates hold the same level of influence as the social conservatives and maple maga groups. And I don’t see how PP can change that perception.
If PP is genuinely trying to reach out to get more moderates, it will upset his maga base. To be clear, I don’t think he’d LOSE them, because, really, where else can they go? Giving their vote to the PPC would be a wasted action. The other problem is, the people who PP is trying to reach may not believe he’s being genuine. And I don’t think that’s unfair, because up until now, PP has built his brand on appealing to his maga base.
I think the tone of his speech would have resonated more with people if he’d made it after losing the election. But instead he went back to what he knew. So changing it NOW is going to cause people to question if he’s being authentic or not.
First time the guy says the name of the POTUS in 18 months and we’re supposed to debate if he’s offering something new?
Low bar.