Talking about the Canadian election (three levels of skill)

So interesting coming back to this video after the fact and realizing that the ostensibly "less knowledgeable" people turned out to have had the most accurate read on the direction of the election. I kind of wonder whether it actually made sense to treat a partisan political consultant as the "most knowledgeable" figure when, in many cases, being a political consultant just means that you're better at leveraging confirmation bias to craft a set narrative out of decontextualized historical/polling data, thus blinding you to more obvious macro trends that outside observers might pick out immediately

31:53 liberals are obsessed with the apple. Most the rest of us don't care. It was a neat moment. It's in the past. No one really cares now.

Yall keep saying the election is about trump. I highly doubt I'm alone in saying, for me, the election is about policy.

7:19 the “ice hockey field” 😂

The last section is conservative delusion

The liberal party on a federal level is polling quite well, and historically has certainly performed well at the federal level, but as to provincial elections they appear to barely exist? American here, and the same phenomenon exists here in comparing federal to state elections and legislatures but from what I can tell, it isn't quite as significant as in Canada. I recognize the systems are different, but in the US, state control in terms of governors/legislatures stays pretty close to 60/40, and when there is a swing federally, there pretty similar swings at the state level as well. I imagine that swing isn't as reliable, since provincial and federal elections in Canada are not on the same schedule, so that makes sense. And I recognize with more parties, coalitions are way more common, but even accounting for that, say if you were to group the NDP/LPC/PQ and even the Greens together, still seems conservatives perform far better at the provincial level. Is there a particular reason for that? Anyways, just raised some interesting questions for me. The vagueness of the prime minister position actually reminds me of a lot of the vagueness in the US as to the speaker of the house and senate majority leader. Great video!

Hi, I just wanted to say that the title is too vague. I clicked on this video thinking it was going to talk about like the different levels of Canadian parliament or something, instead of talking to people who have differing amounts of knowledge. I don't know exactly what you should call it instead, but I recommend taking a page out of epicurious's pro chefs vs home cooks, or similar, title formats.

😂 oh bless his British heart “I don’t understand why trump is putting tariffs on Canada “ … baby , none of us do 😂😂😂 it’s not u it’s him 😂😂😂

Do you have a video where you explain the whole canadian & provincial govt structure… ie federal govt – prime minister – provincial MPs… provincial – premiere – MLAs… I don't know if I have that right lol

I think it would be really fun to hear a conversation between you, Rachael Gilmore, Steve Boots, and Cole Hogan after the debate. Might need a moderator, but it sure would be fun to watch

The last guy is painful

That last “expert” needs to get his audio sorted out. I’m listening on my headphones while getting some work done and I had to re-listen to his segment 4 times because I kept losing attention due to how horrible his audio quality sounded. It’s not hard to get a decent sounding setup in 2025.

Very entertaining and enjoyable mind floss.

Can you talk to someone familiar with British politics about their view of Mark when he served as the Governor of the Bank of England?