Talk:Canada and the 2004 United States presidential election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was on votes for deletion. No consensus was reached, therefore the article was kept. See the archived discussion for further details.

+ Many Canadians hope that the passing of former president Ronald Reagan might help Bush win re-election, understanding what they went through during the six emotional days in September 2000 that marked the passing and state funeral of former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Then-prime minister Jean Chretien called an election weeks later and he and his Liberals won a majority government. The meaning is clear in both cases: Bush wouldn't have been president if it hadn't been for Reagan; Chretien wouldn't have been prime minister if it hadn't been for Trudeau.

I don't understand the logic of this paragraph. Do the Canadians really hope for Bush to win simply out of some kind of emotional sympathy they remember going through a few years ago?? Do Canadians really think that getting all emotional over a dead politician is a good reason to vote for someone?? In any case, Bush was elected WELL BEFORE Reagan, and as an American, I can tell you Reagan's death will have virtually no effect on this election. Is it really true Chretien wouldn't have been prime minister if not for Trudeau's death?? Isn't the Liberal party the most powerful in Canada anyway?? Is this just the grumblings of a conservative Canadian whose logic seems to make no sense?? Revolver 22:27, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree completely and have cut this section. - SimonP 17:50, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Liberals relieved?

The Liberals are relieved that due to a Bush victory there will be no expectations of Canadian help in Iraq.

Is this really true? It seems to me on face that this is being a little short-sided. If many Canadians (that I have read and know personally) think Bush is a danger to the world, wouldn't they view this as more important than "expectations of Canadian help in Iraq"? This just doesn't make sense to me. (But I'm not Canadian.) Revolver 13:43, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm Canadian and I can tell you that most Canadians would have preferred to send peacekeeping troops in Iraq under Kerry than see Bush reelected. Procule 17:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am also a Canadian and with our large military contingent in Afghanistan and enormous public opposition to Canadian involvement in Iraq. I can tell you that no Canadian government in it's rightmind would have even considered sending our nation's troops to Iraq! Without quaotations it is a little hard to prove such an accusation, so I changed the wording! - Chris Gilmore

Canada is largely lacking the base of the Christian Right which provides a significant portion of Bush's support.

I'm sorry, but even in America, he's only winning the Christian vote by 5-8% average. Is there any reason for this, or for the snark about Spanish-speaking? It's useful information, sure, but not really related to the topic at hand unless you simply want an outlet to bash Bush, in which case I strongly suggest Photoshop.

[edit] Spanish-speaking Bush?

The article states that Bush speaks spanish, while I would totally think that he's limited to English. That's not mentionned on his wp page neither. Error?

Bush does speak Spanish and sometimes does speeches and interviews in that language. See for instance [1]. - SimonP 16:12, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

What are "personal links" between US and Canada? Personal links between countries? Also, what do you mean with " third-party candidates". I understand that literally they are third popular and more parties, but does the term "thirdHYPHENparty" apply?--Chealer 03:59, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

[edit] POV

"Decisions made in the United States affect Canada more than those made in almost any other country."

Bullshite. I think dropping bombs on a country affects it pretty significantly.

Just ask your uncle Saddam.

Cynicism aside, I rule to alter or remove the sentence to make it more NPOV.

-Anonymous

You should reread the sentence. It is referring to the United States being the country that most affects Canada, not Canada being the country most affected by the United States. - SimonP 08:01, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] SimonP

If you want to post an external link, include the link and not just the title etc. It doesn't make any sense.

The section is for references. I used facts from that article to write this page so intellectual honesty requires it be listed. - SimonP 04:40, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
There isn't a link to the article? If not, ok.

[edit] RE: Explanations of Canadian support for John Kerry

This section has 2 small paragraphs actually discussing why Canadians like Kerry, whereas there is 10x as much info on why Canadians don't like Bush. Should the section be renamed? - Lucky13pjn 21:39, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I changed the beginning because it made it sound like Canadians were somehow following the Roosevelt-Democratic "lead" of the U.S. when it came to increasing social programs and experimenting with government intervention, this is complete horse-hockey! Canada's move to a welfare state was motivated ENTIRELY by domestic problems, greviances and leaders. We were not following the lead of the U.S. Democrats, if anything their progressive wing has been trying to follow OUR lead - Chris Gilmore