No, the title of this post does not refer to an eating contest under the infamous Golden Arches.  Nor does it refer to a pair of oversized (and overpriced) computers playing a deep game of chess.

No, I'm talking about the Maclean's Debate between four of Canada's federal political leaders:  Justin Trudeau, Elizabeth May, Thomas Mulcair, and Stephen Harper.

This is the first debate in #elxn42 , and could potentially end up being one of the most interesting, for the simple fact that this is the only debate that Elizabeth May had been confirmed for (or invited to, for that matter).  Let's dive right into it.

Pure Perception

The most notably uncomfortable person throughout this entire debate was unquestionably Thomas Mulcair.  Coming off stiff and robotic for the majority of the conversation, Mulcair spoke in a low, odd, cadence, with a sing-song quality to it that seemed more suited for a scolding teacher than for a leader of the country.  There just didn't seem to be much to like from the NDP leader tonight, certainly little of the fire or prosecutorial edge that we've seen before in Question Period.

Of note was Stephen Harper's change in tack from the 2011 Leader Debates.  At that time, Harper's approach seemed largely to ignore his opponents, rarely making eye contact, focussing on the camera, and maintaining a rather aloof attitude.  Here, he seemed more combative, actually turning to address his opponents, addressing them by slightly derogatory terms ("the other guys," "Tom," "Justin"), and giving his tone a bit more of an edge.  I'm not sure it paid off, but I don't think the Prime Minister came off badly hurt either.

Gaffes

While I don't think there were any huge errors in this debate (and nor should there have been, this early in the campaign), there were two significant moments where Stephen Harper perhaps overplayed his position.  Check out this exchange:


The question of whether Canada is in the middle of / headed for a recession has been a topic circulating the newsstands for a while now, and while most Canadians don't entirely know what a recession means, they certainly know it's not a good thing for their jobs.  While a minor moment, it's something that people seized on, as Maclean's post-debate analysis showed that a top trending question was if Canada is in a recession or not.  While the Prime Minister never explicitly uses the word "recession" himself, it's a reminder of how much of this election is pinned on his government's economic record.

The second error that Harper made came during a lively exchange on the senate.  Watch here as Elizabeth May kicks things off:



Look, we all know that governments appoint senators.  We also all know that senators typically will do what the government wants them to do.  But it's a pretty big deal that the Prime Minister would so casually admit that he "asked them to support the party's position," especially at a time when the Senate is currently the target of a great deal of dissatisfaction among Canadian voters.  That he seems relatively unconcerned with this definitely does not read well, and Thomas Mulcair is there to pounce on it.  Notice how the Prime Minister changes tack slightly after Mulcair's monologue:  "Let's be very clear, we simply asked senators to stick to their principles."  You know, Tory principles.

Finally, I have to say that while not an outright gaffe, Thomas Mulcair's flubbing of his closing statement certainly didn't work in his favour.  To goof on what should be the easiest, puffiest piece in any debate made Mulcair look unprofessional at a point where he really shouldn't, and while it probably won't cost him dearly in the long run, he'll have to work on his entire bearing in the future.

Winners and Losers

Ultimately, the three big contenders for Canada's next Prime Minister didn't really win or lose big.  Aside from this being the first of what will undoubtedly be a long series of debates, none of the men really inspired, and none of them really crashed.  The good news for them, of course, is that this means the campaign teams will each have time to try to refine their candidate's style and demeanour, see what issues piqued the interest of the public, monitor the readouts from social media, and update their tactics accordingly.

That's the men.  What about the woman?

I have to say, Elizabeth May came out swinging in this debate and she definitely looked strong.  Maclean's Magazine's post-debate analysis showed her name trending highest in the online conversation, with major spikes when she spoke out on Senate Reform, and during her Closing Statement.  From the get-go, it was apparent that the Green Leader had more skin in the game, knowing that this might be her only chance to put her face and opinions in front of a large audience.  She also took pains to position her party and herself as relevant, mentioning early on that this election has a very strong possibility of ending with a minority parliament that the Greens could hold a great deal more power in.  And, in her closing remarks, May pointed out a host of issues that were ignored:  the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Social Policy, Medicare, and much more.

Ultimately, the real victory for May here could be convincing other debate hosts that her presence is welcomed by a large demographic, and we may not have seen the last of the Green Leader on the debate stage.

So, we could perhaps call Elizabeth May the "winner" of tonight's debate.  What about a loser?

That title must be given to the Conservative Party of Canada, who, in their zealous rush to declare PM Harper the "winner" of tonight's debate, forgot what spellcheck is:

Shine on, you crazy diamonds.

That's all for now, folks!  I'll be posting on Monday for some of the big stories we've heard this week on the campaign trail.