"Mimicking local norms rather than embodying a genuine commitment to Quebec’s distinct cultural and political realities."
What "local norms" is he mimicking?
Comparing Layton to Poilievre is interesting, but there is less "there" there. A province with more left-of-centre voters will get a stronger response to a left-of-centre message. Tory messaging in Quebec since Harper has not been about winning over the whole province with a tailored platform, Mulroney style, but attempting to convince the (smaller) pool of non-left gettable voters that they are Conservatives and build incrementally over time.
Or is this a language and accent thing? I am wondering if that is what you are really talking about.
Layton spoke "Quebec Anglo French" with enough experience of working-class Quebecois folks in his past to put in some twang. Pierre speaks "heritage Prairie francophone French." Is there a greater distance between Pierre's French and the voters, a lack of resonance?
*His questionable insistence on not getting security clearance begs questions that are never appropriately answered.
*His fraternizing with the convoy gang was reprehensible.
*His tacitly accepting caucus members' taking positions that do not represent the bulk of Canadian society, e.g. a woman's right to bodily automony, cozying up to European right-wing extremists.
*His aping of American Trumpist slogans and dog-whistles is pathetic (lots of examples on line)
*His being endorsed by some of the most detestable American figures and his not distancing himself from those endorsements doesn't speak well for his character
*His rubbing shoulders with white supremacists is not endearing.
*His unfortunate natural smirk has not been improved by his insincere pasted on smile.
I think the above list (there are more negatives I could list but ...) are some of the reasons that Poilievre would be a marketer's challenge in any situation. So his problems in Quebec are not significantly different than his problems elsewhere in Canada. It might be true that Quebeckers have their antennae up a little more because they need to know for sure that a prospective PM will respect them and govern for all Canadians, and they have proven throughout history that they are prepared to move their votes around depending on what they hear (more than other parts of Canada who seem to vote the same for generations) but Poilievre's issues would alienate many regardless of language or policy.
Interesting piece, but also quite vague.
"Mimicking local norms rather than embodying a genuine commitment to Quebec’s distinct cultural and political realities."
What "local norms" is he mimicking?
Comparing Layton to Poilievre is interesting, but there is less "there" there. A province with more left-of-centre voters will get a stronger response to a left-of-centre message. Tory messaging in Quebec since Harper has not been about winning over the whole province with a tailored platform, Mulroney style, but attempting to convince the (smaller) pool of non-left gettable voters that they are Conservatives and build incrementally over time.
Or is this a language and accent thing? I am wondering if that is what you are really talking about.
Layton spoke "Quebec Anglo French" with enough experience of working-class Quebecois folks in his past to put in some twang. Pierre speaks "heritage Prairie francophone French." Is there a greater distance between Pierre's French and the voters, a lack of resonance?
Do Quebecers really value ‘deep authentic engagement’ (whatever that means exactly? If so, how will Davos man do?
Enough to make Quebecers forget that he is the head of a party based in the prairie provinces, whose residents hold anti-Quebec sentiments?
I don't think he is unappealing for any one reason; it is a multitude of things that transcend language and even policy:
*His performance in the House is constantly negative.
*His braying sloganeering quickly becomes tiresome.
*His questionable insistence on not getting security clearance begs questions that are never appropriately answered.
*His fraternizing with the convoy gang was reprehensible.
*His tacitly accepting caucus members' taking positions that do not represent the bulk of Canadian society, e.g. a woman's right to bodily automony, cozying up to European right-wing extremists.
*His aping of American Trumpist slogans and dog-whistles is pathetic (lots of examples on line)
*His being endorsed by some of the most detestable American figures and his not distancing himself from those endorsements doesn't speak well for his character
*His rubbing shoulders with white supremacists is not endearing.
*His unfortunate natural smirk has not been improved by his insincere pasted on smile.
I think the above list (there are more negatives I could list but ...) are some of the reasons that Poilievre would be a marketer's challenge in any situation. So his problems in Quebec are not significantly different than his problems elsewhere in Canada. It might be true that Quebeckers have their antennae up a little more because they need to know for sure that a prospective PM will respect them and govern for all Canadians, and they have proven throughout history that they are prepared to move their votes around depending on what they hear (more than other parts of Canada who seem to vote the same for generations) but Poilievre's issues would alienate many regardless of language or policy.