The majority of voters have moved on from legacy media and legacy narratives

A Wake-Up Call for Political Strategists Across the Continent

For only the second time in US history, a president has lost, left office, and won re-election. For most Canadians watching the US election, the news of Donald Trump’s impending return to the White House comes with some degree of disappointment – and confusion.

Rather than getting caught up in doomsaying as there’s enough of that going around, I wanted to share some thoughts on what I would hope Canadians working in and around politics and policy come away with.

Speaking to the heart shouldn’t neglect speaking to the wallet

Biden probably should have resigned sooner, and Harris should have gone through a competitive primary race before carrying the flag. Hindsight is 20/20, and I doubt that the Democrats will make those same mistakes twice.

What I do suspect will be harder to shake is the commitment to running campaigns on social issues alone. The Democrats made the gamble that reproductive rights were a persuasive enough ballot box question to distract from Joe Biden’s lacklustre economic performance.

The clear majority of voters showed that they are more concerned with their job security, housing affordability, and tax bills.

The Democrats now have an opportunity to realign with the concerns of working Americans, recognizing that economic anxieties cannot be overlooked. A robust economic approach doesn’t preclude a moderate and fair social approach, but the latter can’t replace the former.

In Canada, this holds true for our discussions around energy and resources. I’m seeing a very similar disconnect play out on resource policy. Patently bad policies with horrible economic impacts are being advanced at all levels by governments more concerned with virtue signalling than ensuring robust economic performance – the federal Emissions Cap and the fantastical ambitions of David Eby’s CleanBC program among them.

Pre-pandemic, vibes-based economic policy seemed to work. In times of plenty, it is easy to persuade voters that taking economic hits is the right thing to do — after all, why worry about the price of something if you can afford it? Anyone still trying that in 2024 has lost the plot.

Affordability remains a paramount issue for many citizens, and the U.S. election highlighted how campaigns that overlook economic concerns and the declining quality of life risk alienating voters.

From groceries to gas prices, the rising cost of living is top of mind for Canadians, and resource policies must reflect this reality. For instance, a balanced approach to energy production can help keep costs reasonable while supporting Canadian jobs and industries.

It’s a reminder that beyond political credibility or mainstream appeal, policies that directly address financial challenges resonate most with the electorate.

For the resource sector, this means recognizing how affordable energy, resilient supply chains, and robust employment opportunities are interconnected with national policy priorities.

Truth and gatekeeping

The gamesmanship over who holds the authority to define “truth” continues in earnest, and engaging in it by discounting mass popular narratives is a risky gambit for any political movement that seeks to maintain widespread relevance.

We’re seeing a generational change, not just in the US but globally, on how people consume and produce media.

I would argue that Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter was the edge that Trump needed in this new era. Millions of Americans, and millions abroad, sought news and commentary from the platform. Political discourse on the 2024 election was shaped by the ideas generated and amplified online, faster than mainstream news could reliably pick up on.

Since Musk’s acquisition of Twitter/X, the editorial stance, algorithm, and tone of the platform have all shifted. Yes, it has gone ‘rightwards’, but rather than that serving to shrink the audience, it has instead grown, picking up swing voters and rallying the “persuadeds” more effectively.

Just look at the last debate between Trump and Harris: they weren’t even talking about the same political realities.

Research finds that as a main source of news, social media is still behind TV. Where we see the biggest difference is among younger voters.

46% of Americans 18-29 say social media is their top source of news, according to Pew Research. Beyond widespread appeal or readership, social media drives the political commentary of the chattering classes more than any one other platform. TikTok’s influence is likewise growing, with an even younger demographic relying on it almost entirely to help shape and articulate their views.

A similar dynamic around “truth” was plainly obvious in British Columbia’s provincial election last month. A good chunk of commentators couldn’t fathom that voters could accept a party that had refused to throw out candidates saying offensive or dubious things.

The BC Conservatives went from zero seats to just shy of government.

Enough ink has been spilled on this by other commentators, but let’s recap what many have said about the explanatory factors: BC United collapsed following its disastrous rebrand, the BC NDP was stuck with having to account with the inevitable baggage of incumbency in a struggling global economy, and the rise of Poilievre and the federal Conservatives lent some additional name-brand recognition to the BCCP.

The most important piece, in my estimation, was the Conservatives’ ability to tap into a growing demographic that didn’t feel their concerns were reflected in the mainstream political discourse. Twitter was far from the only forum for this, but I think it had a large part to play in cultivating the sense among many voters that consequential narratives were not even remotely being touched on in mainstream media. It gutted voters’ trust in the media, giving the BC Conservatives whose narratives were more effective on social media a decisive advantage.

Public safety is a great example of this. Anyone with eyes and ears who has spent time in Downtown Vancouver in recent years can attest to the visible decline, with visible drug use in public spaces, frequent run-ins with people with severe untreated mental illness yelling at phantoms, and unabashed property crime.

Yet, if we were to believe a great deal of commentators just up until the eve of the election, everything was just fine.

Willful blindness only works when people can’t comment on what they see. But comment they did, and the delayed response to it nearly cost the BC NDP the election.

In a purely practical sense, the increasing role of community-driven sources of information mean that gatekeepers can no longer control the flow of information. And let’s not mince words here: anyone concerned about misinformation is talking about gatekeeping.

Subjecting ideas out there in the commons to scrutiny is necessary. We just can’t take for granted that the outlets themselves will provide that editorial scrutiny directly, if it’s not baked in the platform by design and people are actively choosing to spend time on platforms that have a radical free speech mandate.

It’s time to accept that the train has left the station: persuasiveness needs to be redefined by the mainstream, rather than taking one loss after another and crying foul because the game has changed.

Canadian narratives for Canadian politics

Our closest neighbour and trading partner is the world’s largest economy, and Canadians can’t help but look south for news and ideas. Our own politics often mirror the messages we see in the US, and there’s no use trying to pretend that won’t keep happening.

If we want to avoid falling into the trap of inheriting the dysfunction and divisions that are increasingly defining the political system next door, we have a duty to develop compelling narratives that resonate with the unique needs of Canadians, across the political spectrum.

It’s the definition of insanity to keep trying the same things expecting a different result. Rather than directing anger at voters and political movements who have moved on from old media, if you’re not happy with the result, try meeting them where they are.

And no, this doesn’t mean ceding ground to conspiracy theorists or the fringe. They are only succeeding because a) they are speaking to issues that people decide they care about (like them or not) that are panned by the center and the left, and b) most crucially, there isn’t enough emotionally resonant, persuasive substance being put out to win hearts and minds.

These are not inevitable outcomes. Voter preferences and media technologies are constantly evolving. We need to evolve with them by subjecting our leaders to real scrutiny and demanding better.

Margareta Dovgal is Managing Director of Resource Works. Based in Vancouver, she holds a Master of Public Administration in Energy, Technology and Climate Policy from University College London. Beyond her regular advocacy on natural resources, environment, and economic policy, Margareta also leads our annual Indigenous Partnerships Success Showcase. She can be found on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Related Topics:#LegacyMedia #MargaretaDovgal #USElection AlternativeMedia EnergyNow feature NewMedia PoliticalStrategists SocialMedia x

Up Next

Canadian military again bans prayers at Remembrance Day ceremonies

Don't Miss

Salary costs in Prime Minister’s Office increase under Trudeau

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ defense shield must be built now, Lt. Gen. warns

Alberta / 4 hours ago

The beauty of economic corridors: Inside Alberta’s work to link products with new markets

Energy / 4 hours ago

Why are Western Canadian oil prices so strong?

International

Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ defense shield must be built now, Lt. Gen. warns

Published on April 1, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

Lt. Gen. Trey Obering (Ret.), former director of the Missile Defense Agency, is calling on Congress and the Department of Defense to move quickly in support of President Donald Trump’s vision for a next-generation missile defense system—dubbed the “Golden Dome.” In a Fox News op-ed, Obering argues that a constellation of up to 2,000 satellite interceptors could defend against modern threats from China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran at a fraction of the cost of today’s ground-based systems.

Key Details:

The Golden Dome initiative will be presented to President Trump following his executive order mandating the development of advanced national missile defense.
Obering says a space-based system, enabled by AI and peer-to-peer networking, could intercept missiles earlier in their trajectory, significantly enhancing U.S. deterrence capabilities.
Estimated cost for the full satellite constellation would be less than the price of today’s 44 ground interceptors and global radar network.

Diving Deeper:

In a March 31 op-ed for Fox News, retired Lt. Gen. Trey Obering, who directed the Missile Defense Agency under President George W. Bush, laid out a detailed argument for why President Donald Trump’s “Golden Dome” missile defense shield is both technologically feasible and strategically necessary. “We can do this — and we must,” Obering wrote, emphasizing the urgency of the moment.

According to Obering, the current U.S. missile defense architecture—reliant on ground-based interceptors and radar systems—faces serious limitations in light of the increasingly sophisticated missile technologies being developed by U.S. adversaries. “Our existing missile-defense system cannot easily defeat some of our adversaries’ more modern, sophisticated weapons,” he noted.

The “Golden Dome” proposal envisions a network of up to 2,000 satellites in low Earth orbit, operating as both sensors and interceptors. The concept, which builds on Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative and the shelved “Brilliant Pebbles” program, is now achievable thanks to advances in artificial intelligence, satellite production, and space-based communications. “Each satellite has the knowledge of every other satellite,” Obering explained. “They all serve as both threat sensors and hit-to-kill interceptors.”

Obering pointed to real-world applications of this model in Ukraine, where a peer-to-peer software system—built using concepts from Uber—has helped the Ukrainian military effectively target Russian positions. A similar concept could be applied to satellite-based missile defense. “The networking concept has already proven its effectiveness on the battlefield in Ukraine,” he said.

Importantly, Obering stressed that while no missile shield is perfect, the deterrent power of such a system would be undeniable. “The capability and capacity now exists to defeat single and multiple missile launches, thereby creating strategic deterrence — or ‘peace through strength,’ in the words of both Reagan and Trump,” he wrote.

Cost is another key factor. Obering argued that this next-gen system would come in at a lower price than the 44 ground interceptors currently deployed in Alaska and California. He cited SpaceX’s Starlink, which already has over 7,000 satellites in orbit, as proof of concept for rapid and scalable deployment. “For a defense system charged with safeguarding countless lives and trillions of dollars in assets, this would be money well spent,” he said.

He also warned that bureaucratic delays must not slow the project. “We cannot allow unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles to stifle our progress,” Obering urged. He called on Congress to expedite confirmations of key defense leaders and fully fund the Golden Dome initiative, with the Missile Defense Agency as the lead coordinating body.

With China racing ahead in artificial intelligence and space defense, Obering concluded with a stark warning: “Golden Dome must be built first; the alternative is too terrible to contemplate.”

Automotive

Electric cars just another poor climate policy

Published on April 1, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

The electric car is widely seen as a symbol of a simple, clean solution to climate change. In reality, it’s inefficient, reliant on massive subsidies, and leaves behind a trail of pollution and death that is seldom acknowledged.

We are constantly reminded by climate activists and politicians that electric cars are cleaner, cheaper, and better. Canada and many other countries have promised to prohibit the sale of new gas and diesel cars within a decade. But if electric cars are really so good, why would we need to ban the alternatives?

And why has Canada needed to subsidize each electric car with a minimum $5,000 from the federal government and more from provincial governments to get them bought? Many people are not sold on the idea of an electric car because they worry about having to plan out where and when to recharge. They don’t want to wait for an uncomfortable amount of time while recharging; they don’t want to pay significantly more for the electric car and then see its used-car value decline much faster. For people not privileged to own their own house, recharging is a real challenge. Surveys show that only 15 per cent of Canadians and 11 per cent of Americans want to buy an electric car.

The main environmental selling point of an electric car is that it doesn’t pollute. It is true that its engine doesn’t produce any CO₂ while driving, but it still emits carbon in other ways. Manufacturing the car generates emissions—especially producing the battery which requires a large amount of energy, mostly achieved with coal in China. So even when an electric car is being recharged with clean power in BC, over its lifetime it will emit about one-third of an equivalent gasoline car. When recharged in Alberta, it will emit almost three-quarters.

In some parts of the world, like India, so much of the power comes from coal that electric cars end up emitting more CO₂ than gasoline cars. Across the world, on average, the International Energy Agency estimates that an electric car using the global average mix of power sources over its lifetime will emit nearly half as much CO₂ as a gasoline-driven car, saving about 22 tonnes of CO₂.

But using an electric car to cut emissions is incredibly ineffective. On America’s longest-established carbon trading system, you could buy 22 tonnes of carbon emission cuts for about $660 (US$460). Yet, Ottawa is subsidizing every electric car to the tune of $5,000 or nearly ten times as much, which increases even more if provincial subsidies are included. And since about half of those electrical vehicles would have been bought anyway, it is likely that Canada has spent nearly twenty-times too much cutting CO₂ with electric cars than it could have. To put it differently, Canada could have cut twenty-times more CO₂ for the same amount of money.

Moreover, all these estimates assume that electric cars are driven as far as gasoline cars. They are not. In the US, nine-in-ten households with an electric car actually have one, two or more non-electric cars, with most including an SUV, truck or minivan. Moreover, the electric car is usually driven less than half as much as the other vehicles, which means the CO₂ emission reduction is much smaller. Subsidized electric cars are typically a ‘second’ car for rich people to show off their environmental credentials.

Electric cars are also 320–440 kilograms heavier than equivalent gasoline cars because of their enormous batteries. This means they will wear down roads faster, and cost societies more. They will also cause more air pollution by shredding more particulates from tire and road wear along with their brakes. Now, gasoline cars also pollute through combustion, but electric cars in total pollute more, both from tire and road wear and from forcing more power stations online, often the most polluting ones. The latest meta-study shows that overall electric cars are worse on particulate air pollution. Another study found that in two-thirds of US states, electric cars cause more of the most dangerous particulate air pollution than gasoline-powered cars.

These heavy electric cars are also more dangerous when involved in accidents, because heavy cars more often kill the other party. A study in Nature shows that in total, heavier electric cars will cause so many more deaths that the toll could outweigh the total climate benefits from reduced CO₂ emissions.

Many pundits suggest electric car sales will dominate gasoline cars within a few decades, but the reality is starkly different. A 2023-estimate from the Biden Administration shows that even in 2050, more than two-thirds of all cars globally will still be powered by gas or diesel.

CanvasJS.com

Source: US Energy Information Administration, reference scenario, October 2023
Fossil fuel cars, vast majority is gasoline, also some diesel, all light duty vehicles, the remaining % is mostly LPG.

Electric vehicles will only take over when innovation has made them better and cheaper for real. For now, electric cars run not mostly on electricity but on bad policy and subsidies, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, blocking consumers from choosing the cars they want, and achieving virtually nothing for climate change.