Opinion
The majority of voters have moved on from legacy media and legacy narratives
From EnergyNow.ca
By Margareta Dovgal
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.
International
LOCKED AND LOADED: Trump threatens U.S. response if Iran slaughters protesters
President Trump warned Friday that the United States stands ready to act if Iran’s regime escalates its crackdown on protesters, saying America would “come to their rescue” should peaceful demonstrators be violently killed as unrest spreads across the country. Writing on Truth Social, Trump said, “If Iran shoots and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue,” adding bluntly, “We are locked and loaded and ready to go.” His comments came as clashes between protesters and security forces erupted in multiple Iranian cities, leaving at least six people dead — the first confirmed fatalities since the latest wave of unrest intensified.
The demonstrations began as economic protests, driven by soaring prices, inflation, and a collapsing currency after years of sanctions tied to Iran’s nuclear program, but have quickly taken on a political edge. Shopkeepers in Tehran reportedly shut their doors in protest over economic stagnation, with similar actions and street demonstrations spreading into at least 15 cities, largely concentrated in western Iran. Iranian state media acknowledged deadly clashes in Lordegan and Azna, while state television reported that a member of Iran’s security forces was killed during unrest in Kouhdasht.
Tehran’s leadership responded sharply to Trump’s warning. Ali Larijani, head of Iran’s top security body, reportedly cautioned that U.S. involvement would “destabilize the entire region” and urged Trump to be “mindful of their soldiers’ safety.” Ali Shamkhani, an adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, called Iran’s internal security a “red line,” warning that any American intervention would be met with a response. Even as Iranian officials attempt to strike a public tone of concern, the threat of force is unmistakable. President Masoud Pezeshkian described the protests over economic hardship as understandable and said Thursday that his government would “end up in hell” if it failed to fix the economy. At the same time, prosecutors and judiciary officials vowed zero tolerance. Lorestan prosecutor Ali Hasavand warned that participation in “illegal gatherings” or actions disturbing public order would be treated as crimes and punished “with the greatest firmness,” accusing “hostile individuals” of sowing chaos.
The unrest comes as Iran’s regional position appears weakened following setbacks to its allies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, adding to pressure on the regime at home. While the current demonstrations remain smaller than the massive 2022 protests sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini — which left hundreds dead — the echoes are unmistakable. Similar nationwide unrest in 2019 over fuel prices eventually evolved into open calls to overthrow Iran’s clerical rulers. Trump’s message, characteristically direct, places Tehran on notice: if the regime chooses mass bloodshed again, he says the United States will not look away.
International
Maduro says he’s “ready” to talk
Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro is striking a suddenly conciliatory tone toward Washington after a reported CIA drone strike targeted a cartel-linked docking area inside his country, claiming Caracas is now “ready” to negotiate with the United States on drug trafficking — and even dangling access to Venezuela’s oil sector as leverage.
In a sit-down interview recorded on New Year’s Eve with Spanish journalist Ignacio Ramonet and aired Thursday on state television, Maduro said the U.S. government has long known Venezuela is open to talks, insisting that if Washington wants a note-for-note agreement to combat narcotics flows, “we’re ready.”
He went further, suggesting that American energy firms could return in force, saying Venezuela is open to U.S. oil investment “whenever they want it, wherever they want it and however they want it,” explicitly referencing past dealings with Chevron.
Venezuelan President Maduro:
If the United States wants to seriously talk about an agreement to combat drug trafficking, we are ready. pic.twitter.com/3cWMyDxuC8
— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) January 2, 2026
The remarks come amid an aggressive U.S. pressure campaign that has seen at least 35 American strikes on suspected drug-smuggling vessels across the Caribbean and eastern Pacific since early September, operations U.S. officials say have killed more than 115 suspected traffickers.
Those actions are widely viewed as part of a broader effort to choke off cartel pipelines tied to the Maduro regime and destabilize a government Washington has long accused of functioning as a narco-state.
Last week’s strike — the first publicly acknowledged U.S. operation on Venezuelan soil since the maritime campaign began — was revealed by President Trump himself in a Dec. 26 radio interview, marking a sharp escalation.
Maduro refused to address the strike directly during the interview, saying only that he could “talk about it in a few days,” a silence that stood in contrast to his sudden eagerness to negotiate.
U.S. officials have been far less ambiguous. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in December that the current relationship with Caracas is “intolerable,” accusing the regime of actively partnering with terrorist organizations and criminal networks that threaten U.S. national interests.
Maduro, who is under U.S. indictment on charges including drug trafficking, money laundering, and corruption, is now signaling flexibility just as American pressure tightens — a familiar pattern for a regime that has often talked cooperation when cornered, only to revert once the heat eases.
Whether Washington sees this latest outreach as a genuine shift or another tactical feint remains an open question, but the timing suggests the message was less about diplomacy than survival.
-
Business1 day agoHow convenient: Minnesota day care reports break-in, records gone
-
Business1 day agoThe great policy challenge for governments in Canada in 2026
-
Opinion2 days agoGlobally, 2025 had one of the lowest annual death rates from extreme weather in history
-
International1 day agoTrump confirms first American land strike against Venezuelan narco networks
-
Bruce Dowbiggin3 hours agoThe Rise Of The System Engineer: Has Canada Got A Prayer in 2026?
-
International3 hours agoMaduro says he’s “ready” to talk
-
International3 hours agoLOCKED AND LOADED: Trump threatens U.S. response if Iran slaughters protesters


