Libya was Destined to be a Mess

When people criticize Hillary Clinton, many point to her judgment, especially on foreign policy. She voted for the Iraq War, she wanted a reset with Russia, and most notoriously, she wanted to intervene in Libya.

On the first two, remember that Obama voted for Iraq, and that Donald Trump is recorded supporting it as well (in the beginning). And the Russian reset was with President Medvedev, who was quickly scrapped in Russian policy for weakness. It is President Putin you can blame for that going south.

But Libya is the one that most people like to point to. One, apparently Obama was pushed into it by Hillary's suggestions. And two, Libya did eventually lead to the even more famous Benghazi attack.

So why did Clinton want intervention in Libya? Looking back, most people can clearly see it was a mistake. The government currently controls only the capital, and the rest is held by roving tribes, many affiliated with ISIS.

And you could question Clinton's judgment, pointing out how Iraq was a case of intervention fixing nothing. Clinton looks like she learned nothing from that war, blindly stumbling into a new conflict because "Hoo-ra, the U.S. army rocks!"

None of these criticisms actually point out why the intervention was suggested in the first place.

So I will set the scene; it is 2011, and the Arab Spring is unfolding. In most of these countries these protests would fail or turn into very different movements. Egypt removed its President, elected an Islamist, and removed him in a coup. Syrian protesters were fired upon, and the protesters became rebel fighters. Only Tunisia truly succeeded, becoming a parliamentary republic.

In Libya, the protesters aimed to remove their President, Muammar Qaddafi. He had a reputation for being a hotheaded dictator, and once considered funding a nuclear weapons program. So when the protests started, he declared them "drugged" linked to Al-Qaida, and that he would rather be a martyr than leave the country. The army fired on protesters, and soon half of the country fell to the rebels. Qaddafi had the army march out to retake these areas, and pictures of tanks in the desert reached Western news.

Now think about the consequences to the West. Similar developments were happening in Syria, though not as quickly. But unlike Syria, Libya was a pressing and immediate issue. Libya is only a short boat ride from Italy. That country and France (which has imperialist ties to Libya) openly advocated a no-fly zone and intervention. Civil war so close to Europe was seen as simply unthinkable.

So the no-fly zone was set up, and a coalition of Western powers (led by Italy and France, with the USA as a simple contributor) launched airstrikes on military targets. The rebels took Tripoli, found Qaddafi himself in a drainpipe, and beat him to death.

A parliament was set up in Tripoli, which failed to exert control outside of the city, leading to the chaos in the country today.

Now imagine that there wasn't an intervention. It was widely believed Qaddafi was going to defeat the rebels, with his superior army and tanks. But as we've learned in Syria, the dictator with the army doesn't always win (Assad hasn't lost either, but five years of civil war are definitely not a win). If Qaddafi had triumphed, and done so quickly, maybe the intervention could be considered pointless.

But let's say Qaddafi didn't immediately win. Let's say he ran into the same problems as Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, with the rebels hanging on to key cities, with major components of the army defecting, and no end in sight. Neither side is willing to back down, and the country spirals into every worsening civil war.

Syria has led to a mass refugee exodus, triggering crisis in Europe. It has become a haven for terrorist groups, and ISIS controls part of the country. Libya is far closer to Europe. Any terrorists and refugees would find exporting their problems to Italy and Europe much easier than Syrians did.

Now maybe if the Italians and French had been interested in creating a stable Libya rather than just toppling Qaddafi, they would have recognized that military action alone would not create lasting peace. But they didn't, and the US didn't push them to, so the current situation exists.

Nobody remembers how Libya actually started down this path to chaos, and nobody says how much worse it could have gone. But then, that wouldn't make a very good talking point, would it?

The Irony of American Leadership

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there has been no question that the United States of America is the world's one and only superpower. Though other nations challenge the USA in specific theaters of the world, like Russia in Europe, China in Asia, or Iran in the Middle East, none has a global presence quite like America does.

The U.S. has naval ships in every ocean. It has allies on every continent. It spends the most money on its military than any nation, and its more than the next ten countries combined. No country has had such a dominant global presence since the British Empire, and the United States is perhaps even stronger.

None of this means America is invincible. Wars in the Middle East have shown that even with the backing of strong allies, nation-building is hard. Rivals continue to chip away at American authority whenever they can (even if the attempts are shortsighted). And even the US's allies are unwilling to march lockstep with American goals.

Nonetheless, the current age is probably the most peaceful the world has ever seen. Unlike in the past, wars between nations are rare and far between. This is likely because the world is now filled with democracies, and voters are usually against wars (or tire of it soon). Even when terrorism is on the rise, there is no Cold War between two nuclear armed powers hanging over us. There are no fascists or communists calling for World War or genocide. And imperialism has largely broken down, with even people in Africa having greater access to food, water, and upward mobility.

Part of these positive outcomes result from the US' goals being somewhat benign. If you look at American foreign policy, especially in war, it often boils down to the US fighting for the side of "democracy." Unlike the British Empire or the USSR, which had started wars to increase influence for the sake of it, the US needed legitimate reasons to commit to conflict. It is after all a republic, and if a war was fought the people needed to think the war was right.

For instance, in both World Wars there was great hesitation to commit. In World War I especially, Americans found little difference between the imperialistic British, French, German and Russian nations that fought in the trenches. All had immigrants in America, and none had moral superiority. It was only after several German transgressions, like appealing to Mexico and sinking American ships, did the US join the Allies.

In World War II, the US was still reluctant, even when Hitler's Germany was considered a repressive regime. The U.S. saw Hitler as a threat only to Europe, not to them. Only after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in retaliation for embargoes were the Americans thrown again into war.

Later wars like Korea and Vietnam were fought against the rising tide of repressive, communist movements that sought to control every detail of people's lives. Even if the United States supported repressive governments itself, these dictators lacked the total control of communism. The US viewed communism as an infectious ideology that limits freedom and hope. If you consider that the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991, and led to democratic reforms globally, the results were undeniably good.

Even the modern wars have little to do with power more than ideology. Although some skeptics claim that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria are so that the US can dominate the oil supply, there is little evidence for this. Although energy crisis would occasionally emerge, the US has not dominated oil supply in the Middle East because of its wars. In fact, the US has become nearly completely energy-independent with natural gas industry in its own borders.

The irony of American leadership is that when a nation's foreign policy is based on ideals rather than pursuit of power, the USA is actually more unconventional and unpredictable than its rivals. For instance, Obama declared the use of conventional weapons in Syria a "red line." He did this not because he wanted greater influence in Syria, or to topple a rival, or to create a new front against Russia. He did so because he (as most of Western civilization does) that the use of chemical weapons is a crime against humanity, and there must be a response.

Although Obama did not invade Syria as he may have suggested, he asked Congress to vote on intervention (they voted no, knowing war would be unpopular). He then negotiated with Russia to have those chemical weapons removed from the country. None of these actions increased American power in any way, but did end the risk of chemical warfare reemerging in the modern world.

Though this foreign policy, based on American ideals is not uniform (the US still considers Saudi Arabia a major ally despite its repressive policies, and has toppled many dictators it deemed threats), it is still effective. It has allowed the US to have a role in every continent, allies globally, and often legitimate concerns. It has stumbled one more than one occasion, but the blame is usually attributed to incompetence or stupidity rather than corrupt greed.

And unlike other nations, the United States appears quite happy with the current world order. While China and Russia constantly push against international law and borders, the U.S. strives to preserve them. There is no doubt that the U.S. benefits off them, but it also lacks total control of its allies. The U.K's decision in Brexit is a good example, when Obama suggested it was a pretty bad idea.

The U.S.A. is the global superpower. This can make people uncomfortable, but here are some soothing facts. There are fewer deaths in war than at any time in history, largely because of the norms between nations that the U.S. tries to preserve. Even with global terrorism on the rise, it is far likelier that you will be in a car accident or be diagnosed with cancer than a bomb going off. And the police are not brutal shock troops of a dictatorial regime, but normal people trying to keep their communities safer.

Hillary Clinton is the Luckiest Candidate

If you look at all of the candidates who ran to be President of the United States this year, it is clear none was as lucky as Hillary Clinton.

Why? Well, despite all her negatives, despite how easily she could have been defeated electorally, she probably won't be. Because the opposing party nominated the one thing she can quite easily slay.

Start on the Democratic primaries. Only four other candidates decided to run, three of whom just weren't inspiring enough to come close to beating Clinton and probably did it for some recognition (it didn't work). The last, Bernie Sanders, had a message that resonated enough to look challenging, but didn't hold enough appeal to groups beyond young whites. And I know that is painting broadly, but Clinton did a complete sweep of the southern states (whose Democratic primary voters are nearly all minorities), so he clearly did something wrong.

But why didn't someone more appealing run? Joe Biden thought about it, but chickened out. And he probably did because Hillary has been planning on running since 2012, and has the money to make any real fight really, really challenging. The irony was that Sanders showed Joe Biden might have actually beaten her, and that her campaign cash wasn't as insurmountable as was believed.

So, she got lucky in the Democratic primaries. But that 'aint nothin' when it comes to the Republicans.

Firstly, a lot of those guys could have beaten her. Probably not Ted Cruz, who happens to be disliked by pretty much everyone but staunch Republicans, but most of them. Others, like Jeb Bush or Chris Christie could probably eke out a win, by focusing on economics and foreign policy (and Jeb's Spanish). And Marco Rubio would have absolutely creamed Clinton's clock.

But that wasn't made to be. Every establishment candidate knew they could beat Clinton, and therefore decided the way to become President was to first eliminate the other establishment candidates. Bush devoted his cash to taking down Marco Rubio. Marco and Cruz duelled over immigration. Chris attacked Marco on repeating talking points. Kasich didn't attack anyone, but reserved his own slice of voters who don't like attacking.

So when it turned out that Trump voters were 40% of primary voters, they easily smashed everyone else to bits. No one was left to unite that 60%, and Clinton was handed the gift of facing Donald Trump.

And Trump is a gift. Clinton has a talking point for nearly every demographic and why Trump wants to destroy their lives. Swing voters are quite happy to dump the Trump and head for the hills. It doesn't matter how bad Trump is, because Trump is worse.

Now, she can still lose. There are about 90 days left, and anything can happen. But right now Trump is predicting that the election is going to be rigged. It won't be, but after he loses he can claim it was.

Trump is not the Candidate of "Law and Order"

In the wake of the many tragedies in the U.S. over the past few weeks, presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has taken to calling himself the candidate of "Law and Order."

I'm not a fan of the term for several reasons. It was first introduced in American politics by the Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964, an election that set the stage for modern politics. Goldwater's landslide loss to Lyndon Johnson set the realignment of both parties, making the Republican "Party of Lincoln" absorb the Dixiecrats who were rabidly against Civil Rights, with more moderates joining the Democrats.

"Law and Order" was then championed successfully by Republicans Nixon and later Reagan, who both stressed that the appropriate response to the rampant drugs and crime of the 1960s could only be confronted by harsher punishments and more incarceration.

Although one could say that Nixon took "Law and Order" perhaps too seriously, especially over anti-war protests, the policy was popular. Gerald Ford said "How long are we going to abdicate law and order in favor of a soft social theory that the man who heaves a brick through your window or tosses a firebomb into your car is simply the misunderstood and underprivileged product of a broken home?" The choice was between punishing crime now, or waiting to see if perhaps solving underlying reasons would solve it later. Voters enthusiastically chose Law and Order.

The policies are a bit of a mixed bag. The war on drugs has been a complete failure, with marijuana more popular than ever (even legalized in some places), and more dangerous drugs like heroin ascendant. Crime continued to rise throughout the 1960s until peaking at around the 1990s. Since then there has been a steady decline in crime, though whether this is due to Law and Order policies or other trends is hard to tell, as even Bill Clinton pushed mandatory sentences.

But the real problem today isn't crime, with violent crime only .387% and property crime only 2.9% (which is historically very low). The problems are far more emotional, as we see a mass murder every week, or an innocent's death by the police. Though the number of people killed are relatively low, with our 24-hour news it is easy to believe we are beset by terrorism, rioters, anarchists or racist cops.

And Donald Trump doesn't craft a very reasonable solution to that. He hasn't offered promises to give police, the military or mental health further funding. With the National Rifle Association's support, he hasn't made any promise to curb gun ownership from terrorists or criminals. His solution to terrorism seems to be "lock the door and keep the foreigners out," despite the fact that most terrorism in American is committed by "lone wolves" who were born poor in the US and became radicalized.

Whoever wins the election, it isn't likely to move the needle much, with most police and mental heath funded at the state level. But if you hear someone say they will bring in "Law and Order," think about what they mean, and whether it actually works.

Calling Terrorism "Radical Islam" Shouldn't Matter

In the wake of the Orlando attack, Hillary Clinton ended one of the Republican party's most-used critiques against Democrats. In a phone call the presumptive Democratic nominee called the attack an act of radical Islamic terrorism.

For almost every terrorist attack during Obama's tenure the President has avoided calling acts of terrorism by Muslims as acts of "Radical Islamic Terrorism." Republicans have often used this to criticize the President, saying that because Obama isn't bold enough to recognize the attacks for what they are he is ignorant or incompetent in the fight against Al Qaeda and now ISIS.

Hillary Clinton was clever enough to recognize this line of attack, as it was used against her after San Bernadino, Paris and Brussels. So she decided to simply say it was an attack of radical Islamic terrorism so that Donald Trump could not accuse her of being to politically correct to recognize the "real enemy." The Republican nominee instead claimed he had successfully predicted such an attack would happen and reiterated his ban on Muslims entering the country.

Obama's caution of using the term radical Islamic terrorism is understandable. Most Muslims (especially in America) are horrified at these attacks and are in no way connected to terrorism. And the President is no doubt afraid that by saying "Islamic" and "terrorism" next to each other will make people think that their Muslim neighbors are the enemy, and will start treating them as so.

But both the President and Trump are wrong about the term. Firstly, Obama doesn't need to feel afraid of saying radical Islam because essentially everyone knows that acts of terrorism like Orlando are done by Muslims. The 24-hour news cycle is quick to point out the attacker's religion, and it is constantly reminding us how ISIS is trying to recruit mentally ill and socially inept young people into committing horrific acts of violence. Although Obama's intentions are noble, it is like trying to stop a forest fire with a sprinkler.

But Trump and the Republicans' criticism of Obama is much more duplicitous. Obama is not cowardly by avoiding the words "radical Islam," or incompetent. In fact he has shown to be the most aware of the problems in the Middle East, knowing full well that large-scale troop invasions are both costly and ineffective at beating terrorism.

And more importantly, Republican leadership is well aware that whether or not the President says "radical Islam" nothing will change. Republicans will continue thinking that more should be done to combat ISIS, Democrats will think that most Muslims are blameless. And ISIS will not suddenly become afraid of the President, nor will American Muslims start fearing for their safety.

ISIS is afraid of the United States. They are slowly losing ground to the various forces facing them, from the Iraqi siege at Fallujah, and the emboldened Syrian government. Obama has very wisely decided to let the less radical factions in the area remove ISIS instead of direct involvement, and the strategy is working. ISIS' efforts to do terrorism involved is an attempt to gaud the US into attacking, which would be a useful recruiting platform to fight the "Imperialistic American infidels."

And American Muslims are already afraid. Donald Trump has already said he would bring back torture, kill the terrorists families and ban all Muslims from entering the US. Runner-up and so-called constitutionalist Ted Cruz said he would make the police patrol Muslim neighborhoods. And there are many efforts to block Syrian refugees from entering the country, despite it being far easier for a terrorist to enter with a student VISA rather than posing as a refugee with a family.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised at that last one, as the US refused Jewish refugees during WWII and Vietnamese ones in their intervention. But the rhetoric is certainly spiraling into a dark rabbit hole, not just for Muslims but other minorities. Whether or not politicians say "radical Islamic terrorism" is unimportant, as terrorism is here and words won't change that. It is far more important that American leaders talk about the problems they face and how to solve them, rather than fixating on talking points that don't change anything.

The U.S. Election, and Why it is Totally Bonkers

The United States holds presidential elections that probably last the longest in the world. The 2016 race began when Senator Ted Cruz first announced he was running at the end of March 2015. The election will end in November, meaning people have been campaigning for this presidency for one year and seven months. Which means that there have probably been millions of different op-eds on this election, and yet here I am taking my own shot at it.

I'll start by saying this election simply has no precedent. It is completely insane.

One the Democratic side, the two remaining candidates are Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Both are unprecedented. Though women have run for president before, none has been as successful as Hillary, who has (and I am using the British betting markets for this) the odds of 4/11 of becoming the next POTUS. A woman has never been the nominee of a major party in the U.S, much less the president. What is even more shocking is that she has higher unavailability numbers than any person to run for POTUS, save for her even more unpopular opponent.

And Bernie Sanders is quite simply the most successful socialist in American history. Several socialists have run for office before, but none have cracked 10% in a presidential election or come so close to becoming a major party's nominee. It is actual proof that the word "socialist" is not the death-knell for electoral success that it once was.

The Republican side may be even more absurd. The presumptive nominee, Donald Trump, is a populist, but this isn't completely unprecedented. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater can all be considered populists. What is new is that Trump is the first nominee for a major party with no government experience, in anything. He was never a governor, a senator, a representative, a mayor, NOTHING. And that is exactly why people like him. And he also has the worst favorability of any candidate ever, including his opponent.

None of this is going to stop me from trying to predict the outcome, as I love predicting elections. I even predicted the last Canadian one correctly (although I didn't think the Liberals would win by such a large margin). So I will do my best here, and will keep my analysis to purely numbers and not positions.

1. Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. Sorry Sanderistas, but to overtake Clinton he needs not only to win all of the remaining states, but by margins up to 85% to 15%. Because delegates are given out proportionally, beating Clinton isn't enough anymore. You would need to win by margins comparable to Sanders Vermont victory, in his home state.

2. Sanders will get little concessions out of Clinton at the convention. She isn't likely to budge much farther than she has already, especially when she wants to attract moderate voters. What she may do is become more vocal about positions she already supports. For example, promising to nominate a Justice that would overturn Citizens United. She has said numerous times that she is against money in politics, so making such a promise isn't shifting, but it is a clear way to attract Sanders supporters.

3. Sanders will support Clinton. He's not going to enjoy it, but he will. Although there are sharp disagreements between him and the Secretary, he knows it is far better for his movement if Clinton is in the White House over Trump. They can continue to badger Clinton if she is POTUS, while Trump can easily ignore them. Though Trump and Sanders share similar opinions on free-trade they disagree on pretty much everything else.

4. Clinton won't get indited. The most similar high-profile email-scandal was General Petraeus, He was sharing confidential emails with his extra-marital lover, which is probably a worse crime than using a private server when you should have used the government one. The General was put on probation for two years and paid a $100,000 fine. Clinton can't be put on probation and can easily cough up that money, and such a result is still more unlikely because her breach was smaller.

4. Clinton will beat Trump. This requires a longer explanation. Many are concerned that Trump is pulling ahead of Clinton, with one poll beating her 45 to 42. But compare that number to 2012, when Obama beat Romney 51 to 47. In 2012, only 2% of voters chose a third-party. In the current poll, about 13% of people are choosing neither candidate.

A lot of voters make up their minds right up to the election. In 2012, it is believed that Romney's statement on how 44% of Americans don't pay taxes was the thing pushing moderates over the edge. So if we consider that 13% of Americans haven't picked which candidate they loathe more, let's think why.

The Democratic primaries still aren't over, and many Sanderistas think they may still have a chance. They really don't, but if any of them picks up a phone and is asked if they would rather have Trump or Clinton, many are currently happy saying neither. But when Sanders endorses her, and after months of Trump vs. Clinton coverage, most of the Sanders supporters will shift to her, and the polls will change to be closer to that Romney/Obama result.

And remember, in a tight poll the Democrats have the advantage. They undoubtedly hold the advantage with younger voters, who are less likely to have a landline and respond to a poll. This is a big reason I was wrong in my Canadian prediction, as I took the polls too seriously (which predicted a close Liberal minority government). Instead the Liberals over performed, as many of their voters had never answered a poll before. I never have, but my Grandparents have many times.

Although the overall result may be as close or closer than the 51% to 47% of 2012, the Democrats also have the advantage in the electoral college. In 2012 Obama crushed Romney by 332 to 206, despite a difference of 4% overall. There are simply more safe "blue" states than "red" ones. In order for the Republicans to win they need to win more states than the Democrats. Romney only got one swing state, North Carolina, which wasn't nearly enough.

Trump would have to win at least Ohio, Florida, and a couple others to win the election. The last time a Republican has done this was 2004, where Bush had the incumbent advantage. Since then we have a popular incumbent and the demographics have changed, both in favor to Clinton. It is believed with Latino support Clinton can still easily win Florida, and that alone gives her the victory.

The numbers since now can change, but I think if they do they will move in favor of Clinton. She is still competing against Sanders and will inevitably get his support. There are still Trump-Clinton debates to be had, which are probably his worst format and her best.

He still has a chance, as in any U.S. election there are only two options. A economic downturn or large terrorist attack can swing moderate opinion in favor of the Donald. But short of election-changing events, it appears that 2016 will elect the first woman as leader of the free-world.

The Canadian Election in Retrospect

In the months after the November election in Canada that brought Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party control of the country, Canada briefly became popular internationally. In a poll Justin was thought the most attractive world leader, and international media applauded the country for electing such a non-controversial looking fellow.

But I voted in that election, and it certainly was not without controversy.

The majority government to Trudeau surprised everyone, but then most people seem to be pretty okay with it now. Harper made a terrible campaigning decision to focuses on leadership when he should have focused on his economic record. He thought that by pointing out that Trudeau had little leadership experience people would realize that the sitting PM of nine years was the better choice. But by focusing on leadership instead of policy, he was directing attention not just to Justin, but to himself. And after nine years, most of the country didn't like him anymore.

The other option was Tom Mulcair of the NDP, who had little personality other than anger over how people disagreed with him. Trudeau was able to capitalize on this by essentially pointing out he was young, handsome, and a nice guy that wanted to do things differently. His campaign was pretty refreshing, as it was far more positive ("sunny ways") and he seemed more focused on getting everyone's vote than just his base.

Trudeau also got elected promising a platform that is pretty radical; he said he will run up deficits for the next four years in order to overhaul Canada's infrastructure to boost economic growth. The budget is already projected to run up higher deficits than the Liberals originally projected, but people probably won't get too upset even if they got more than they asked for.

Many people in the news are drawing comparisons of Trudeau to Obama, (Obama himself remarked on it) but Trudeau does have a huge majority so will get most of what he wants without much resistance, unlike in America where Obama lost the House of Representatives two years in office.

Canada's economic situation is a bit of a mixed-bag. Most GDP growth has been due to Alberta's oil sector, which has now tanked due to the oil price. The remaining sectors seem to be doing alright (depending on the sector), and the country seems to be in only a technical recession. Most people outside of Alberta aren't feeling too much of a hit (though that province has been hit hard). The NDP provincial government has made the situation even worse as they are trying to implement environment regulation and increase corporate tax.

Harper has done some great things in the past, as he's greatly lowered taxes, making corporate taxes lower than America's while income tax is lower than before. This is effective as it is really businesses that drives economic growth not an individual's spending. He also pushed the TPP and I'm a huge supporter of free trade (raising two billion people out of poverty). But Harper's approach to the current economic problem is to me deeply flawed. He wanted to focus on balancing the budget, which I think was important before the downturn but irrelevant right now (cutting government spending, or austerity, is not going to improve the economy if there is a recession).

The NDP promised they would balance the budget but made even more promises than the Liberals (such as free childcare) so few people took them seriously. Others decided Trudeau was "the man to beat Harper." An NDP government would be even more liberal than the liberals, as they would have broken the TPP and instituted government day-care and a whole bunch of other stuff that would be difficult to implement in this economic climate.

The Liberals main platform focused on a large infrastructure spending plan, which essentially amounts to "we don't care about balancing the budget for four years." It's going to throw a lot of money at the provincial governments in the hopes it will spur spending, efficiency and overall economic growth. It's Keynesian economics, that when times are tough the government throws money, when they are good they should scale it back. Federal Banks behave the same way with interests rates. Whether it will work I don't know, and there is going to be a lot of debt at the end of the tunnel, but we'll probably manage (we still have less debt per person and by GDP than a lot of developed countries).

The Liberals are going to cut tax rates slightly for 40-80k and raise them by the same percentage for 200k+ (29% to 32% I think). There aren't any other federal tax brackets. Corporate taxes won't change but they are going to close loopholes for both businesses and individuals. The Liberals are not adding any new program like day-care, and aren't even making federal environmental law, but are instead planning on setting a new emissions target and then working with each provincial government individually to work out how the target will be met. The Liberals are honestly quite moderate in those respects, as they aren't obviously socialist or obviously conservative.

The Liberals obviously won the election. The Conservatives look to be in full repair mode, ditching Harper as leader, and tacked left on some issues to appear more moderate. For instance, the Conservative's new interim leader says they have accepted gay marriage and are only concerned about Marijuana in terms of access to children. They appear to be trying to find a balance between criticizing the new PM without alienating voters that clearly like him (he has very high approval ratings).

The NDP are in worse straights. The Liberals outmaneuvered them by promising deficits while the NDP sounded unrealistic by promising a balanced budget and more benefits. The lost they most votes, and have returned to their third-party prospects. Mulcair has been ousted as leader which will trigger a leadership race, but both the Conservatives and NDP do not have clear frontrunners.

If the Liberals avoid controversy, they will have an effective four years of leadership, and may be able to maintain more.