Predict the result of the 2019 federal election

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Were any of those analyses done in the last 30 years? The turban might hurt in Québec, but no one in 2018 is not going to vote for someone because they have a friggin beard, of all things.

Jagmeet Singh was a poor choice for leader and is not likely to fare well in the election, but not because of how he looks - and certainly not because he has a beard.

Why male politicians don't have facial hair
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-...al-hair-2015-6

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Is the "open display of religion/ethnic marker" the main obstacle people are seeing for Singh's chances? Or his policies in particular?

Or is it also the perception that a comparatively young, urbanite like him won't "resonate" with the NDPers in rural, small town Canada?

I thought Singh was a bad choice because he's a Trudeau-lite. Why would someone go for the unknown Trudeau if they think the Trudeau we've actually had has done alright?

I may change my view of Singh once the campaign gets going and he delves deeper into his actual platform, but I followed the NDP leadership race fairly closely and found him to just be boring and not offer much of substance. I still don't get his celebrity appeal, I guess maybe he was bigger in Ontario or something? But I remember when they weren't sure if he'd run or not and everyone was all excited about, I didn't get the hype.

I don't really care about the turban or beard though personally. But in such a big sample size as Canada's population, any issue can turn voters on and off.

[Acajack]

I think it's naive to think that the NDP with Singh at its head won't lose at least some points due to xenophobia or even racism. And I think that can be the case anywhere in the country - and not just one particular region.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Why male politicians don't have facial hair
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-...al-hair-2015-6

Perhaps my snakiness was a bit unwarranted. Nonetheless, I'm not sure how useful this study is either (or at least, the information presented here). Does it separate results for age, voting intention, or region? Or even specific type of facial hair (eg. 70s porn stache vs well-groomed beard)? And how much do those differences in perception actually affect likely voting rates - are we talking a +/- 0.5% difference here, or +/- 10%? My instinctive reaction is that at least among younger people (ie. the NDP's target demographic), facial hair would not be seen as a negative; while among the rest of the population it would still be very much secondary to personality and policies.

A bit closer to home for example, the NDP led by bearded Mulcair initially led polls in the 2015 election campaign; while he was also polling as the most likeable/respected/trustworthy party leader. It was some of his comments and missteps around the Niqab issue (among others perhaps) that cost him success in the election - not so much an unlikeability of the guy with the beard.

[MonctonRad]

This article was just a commentary. There have however been a number of studies out there which have shown bearded men as being perceived to be untrustworthy, alpha male type individuals insensitive to women's issues. This is a fairly well known misconception, but although it is a misconception, one of the first things an image consultant will do (after changing a politicians wardrobe) is to work on their grooming, and the first thing to go will be a beard......

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Were any of those analyses done in the last 30 years? The turban might hurt in Québec, but no one in 2018 is not going to vote for someone because they have a friggin beard, of all things.

Jagmeet Singh was a poor choice for leader and is not likely to fare well in the election, but not because of how he looks - and certainly not because he has a beard.

This. You can't swing a growler around here without hitting some guy with a beard (me included ).

Singh has suffered from not having the exposure from having a commons seat. This will change if he is elected in the Burnaby byelection, which BTW is a pretty gutsy move on his part. It's not a guaranteed NDP seat.People go on about Trudeau's potential problems in QC, but it could easily be disaffected urban, environmentally conscious voters in Metro Vancouver that could cost him his majority.

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by whatnext

This. You can't swing a growler around here without hitting some guy with a beard (me included ).

Singh has suffered from not having the exposure from having a commons seat. This will change if he is elected in the Burnaby byelection, which BTW is a pretty gutsy move on his part. It's not a guaranteed NDP seat.People go on about Trudeau's potential problems in QC, but it could easily be disaffected urban, environmentally conscious voters in Metro Vancouver that could cost him his majority.

Singh is an ethnocentric votebank politician. He isn't a statesman. A true statesman would inspire with or without a turban. Outside Brampton and Surrey, the NDP is going to get trounced.

[Docere]

There is a pretty strong NDP machine in Burnaby. It's true Kennedy Stewart had a close call in the last federal election but that was the height of the red tide. In a by-election turnout will be lower - I expect the NDP to have a more motivated voting base.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I thought Singh was a bad choice because he's a Trudeau-lite. Why would someone go for the unknown Trudeau if they think the Trudeau we've actually had has done alright?

I may change my view of Singh once the campaign gets going and he delves deeper into his actual platform, but I followed the NDP leadership race fairly closely and found him to just be boring and not offer much of substance. I still don't get his celebrity appeal, I guess maybe he was bigger in Ontario or something? But I remember when they weren't sure if he'd run or not and everyone was all excited about, I didn't get the hype.

I don't really care about the turban or beard though personally. But in such a big sample size as Canada's population, any issue can turn voters on and off.

I find that Singh is Trudeau-Plus (or Trudeau on steroids?)

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Perhaps my snakiness was a bit unwarranted. Nonetheless, I'm not sure how useful this study is either (or at least, the information presented here). Does it separate results for age, voting intention, or region? Or even specific type of facial hair (eg. 70s porn stache vs well-groomed beard)? And how much do those differences in perception actually affect likely voting rates - are we talking a +/- 0.5% difference here, or +/- 10%? My instinctive reaction is that at least among younger people (ie. the NDP's target demographic), facial hair would not be seen as a negative; while among the rest of the population it would still be very much secondary to personality and policies.

A bit closer to home for example, the NDP led by bearded Mulcair initially led polls in the 2015 election campaign; while he was also polling as the most likeable/respected/trustworthy party leader. It was some of his comments and missteps around the Niqab issue (among others perhaps) that cost him success in the election - not so much an unlikeability of the guy with the beard.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

This article was just a commentary. There have however been a number of studies out there which have shown bearded men as being perceived to be untrustworthy, alpha male type individuals insensitive to women's issues. This is a fairly well known misconception, but although it is a misconception, one of the first things an image consultant will do (after changing a politicians wardrobe) is to work on their grooming, and the first thing to go will be a beard......

Also that's a US study right? Does it apply across more than American society? I presume Canada's obviously still close enough but it raises the question of whether we always follow their lead.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

Singh is an ethnocentric votebank politician. He isn't a statesman. A true statesman would inspire with or without a turban. Outside Brampton and Surrey, the NDP is going to get trounced.

And Scheer is a statesman? He comes across as a whiny weak dweeb who can’t control his caucus.

[Loco101]

Maxime Bernier is really going after Scheer and other CPC MPs. I think he's trying to get kicked out of the CPC caucus and ruin things for the party. Likely to try set himself up to be the next CPC party leader.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And Scheer is a statesman? He comes across as a whiny weak dweeb who can’t control his caucus.

I don't believe mistercorporate stated anything that hinted we had "true statesmen" available at the moment in Canadian politics in his opinion...

[Dengler Avenue]

Then, 6 months before the federal election, scandals break out about Scheer, forcing him to resign.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Were any of those analyses done in the last 30 years? The turban might hurt in Québec, but no one in 2018 is not going to vote for someone because they have a friggin beard, of all things.

Jagmeet Singh was a poor choice for leader and is not likely to fare well in the election, but not because of how he looks - and certainly not because he has a beard.

I think it's supposed to be an unconscious bias. I don't know anything about Singh or his policies but I do know that if he's Sikh then the beard isn't optional either way.

With that said, I wish he'd run on a conservative platform for the simple reason that he looks "multicutural" to the average Canadian. Given that that's pretty much a religion in Canada, I'd say it would be good for the CPC.

[Acajack]

Beards actually are optional for Sikh men. It is dependent upon your level of "devotion".

For example former BC Premier Ujjal Dosanjh is a Sikh and has not "renounced" that fact, and does not wear a beard nor a turban.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And Scheer is a statesman? He comes across as a whiny weak dweeb who can’t control his caucus.

Now, now. He's already travelled to London (he negotiated a new bilateral FTA, wasn't it?) and now he's going to India to repair the bilateral relationship. He's not a statesman, he's a magician!

[Loco101]

Reform Party 2.0? Bernier's idea of a new party will only fly if the economy falls into recession. (blame things on poor people receiving assistance and on immigration)

[acottawa]

Hard to tell how much influence the Mad Max Party is going to have. I tend to think it is another Green Party (leader wins their seat but otherwise not much impact). But it could also be another Trillium Party (which picked up almost no support). I guess reform party is possible too, but they didn't have much impact their first election (1988).

His main problem is that his most obvious base of support is rural Quebec, which also strongly supports the status quo on dairy (and put Scheer in the leader's chair).

I think it will complicate the Liberal's playbook who were probably planning to run against Bernier and largely ignore Scheer, which will be harder to do now.

[big W]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Minority liberal government.

Scheer and Singh are tossed. An election is called again in 2021 or 2022 where the Conservatives win a majority.

Every government has received at least two mandates since the 30s. The Liberals won't buck the trend.

Pretty close to my thoughts. Only two differences is that I it will be a slim majority liberal government and Singh will stay on. Plus I am pretty much expecting once Scheer resigns after the election many of the former high profile MP's in the Conservative party under harper will come back (Ambrose, Baird, Riatt and MacKay being top of mind) to lead the party and they will then form the next government, but they will be less mention of social issues (back to the old progressive conservatives). Just the way we do things in Canada.