Quantcast

Breaking news: 9 out of 10 Canadians plan to spend American election day rocking back and forth


In a BREAKING exclusive from The Beaverton, we have received completely totally accurate data on Canadians’ plans for election day!

OTTAWA – A recent survey has revealed that 9 out of every 10 Canadians will spend the entirety of November 8 experiencing a moderate to severe panic attack, manifesting itself in curling into a ball and mumbling ‘this isn’t happening’ over and over again.

“In 2012 I got together with some friends and we had a lot of fun live tweeting Obama’s re-election,” said Shanique Balewa of Winnipeg. “But this year I think I’m just going to sit in a dark room with trembling hands as I constantly refresh CNN on my phone.”

“That or just take a bunch of ambien and hope my nightmares are not as bad as the real world nightmare we may be about to experience,” she added.

From coast to coast, millions of Canadians advised of similar “rocking/moaning” plans. There were variations – some planned to constantly call friends and repeatedly ask, “Trump can’t possibly win right?”, while others intended to never say the name, relying on the Macbeth/Voldemort principal. Still the central activity of holding yourself close to prevent thinking about the horrible, shockingly likely, possibility remained a constant.

“Huhhh, ohhhhh, huhhh, ohhhhh, ohhhh man, oh no, no, no, no, no, no, please no. Tell me this isn’t happening,” said Simon Donahue of Fredericton as he entered into his fifth straight hour of shaking.

The nation’s therapists have reported efforts to calm Canadian’s election , though many note that upon discussing the source of patients’ fears, the mental health professionals joined the 90% and commenced panicking.

Reached for comment, Prime Minister Trudeau admitted to Canadians that, like most of them, he also plans to spend “freaking the eff out”. Sources in the PMO say this stems not only from fears of actually having to work with a the former reality TV host, but frustration over how a Trump Presidency would derail the PM’s plans to break the internet again by posting a “#feminist selfie” with Hillary.

The survey also revealed that the remaining 10% of Canadians were offering to e-mail in some YouTube videos that showed Hillary was just as bad.

Thanks for this BREAKING NEWS, Beaverton.

[I laughed in a “haha too real” kind of way. In case it wasn’t obvious: The Beaverton is a satire site]

-Shiv

Comments

  1. Rob Grigjanis says

    I’ll be a tad fidgety, but the Princeton Election Consortium has been calming my nerves of late. They’ve been the most accurate analysts since 2004, and they have Clinton at 97% probability of winning, even taking post-Comey polls into account.

    Never mind satire, I’m sure Trudeau will be freaking the eff out. He’d have to actually meet and talk to the Orange Shitsack.

  2. chigau (違う) says

    I think I’ll spend the day cleaning my guns.
    If I can move all the junk off of the gun cabinet. and find the key.

  3. Siobhan says

    I’ll also be drinking.

    My friends and I are planning a, uh, “party.” I’ve told them we ought to consider it a funeral.

  4. Jake Harban says

    Don’t worry, most polls are pretty sure Clinton will win.

    She may be more conservative than Harper, but you won’t hear any American liberals objecting because hey, she’s not Trump.

  5. Siobhan says

    @Jake

    but you won’t hear any American liberals objecting

    That seems disingenuous, Jake. Most progressive American movements I know of call for the continuous agitation at all levels of government to advance progressive candidates. I think there will be plenty of (valid, non-misogynistic) criticism and protest of Clinton’s presidency by those select few progressive movements, especially about her foreign policy. But she has to be President before we can get to that point, and I think it’s a false equivalency to assume as many progressive agendas will be blocked by Clinton as by Trump.

  6. quotetheunquote says

    @Jake #6.
    Argh, but I do hate polls. Not trying to denigrate the pollsters – I’m sure they DO perform due diligence, at least the “real ones” do. But they so often go wrong (C.F. last provincial election in Alberta, Brexit), and always (seemingly) at the worst possible time.

    So I’m still going to be “rolled up in a ball, rocking back and forth” on Tuesday; even if the sane people in the U.S. of A. prevail, the results will no doubt show that I am living next door to several 10s of millions (at minimum) of people who basically have no decency. None, at all. If they did, and they really hate Clinton so much, they could “write in” their pet turtle’s name, or whatever.

    (Not that it’s my call, of course, but I’d actually prefer that McMullin guy – ahead of He Whom We Do Not Name – as POTUS. What a thought!)

  7. Jake Harban says

    That seems disingenuous, Jake. Most progressive American movements I know of call for the continuous agitation at all levels of government to advance progressive candidates.

    While there are certainly many progressive movements, they tend to be much more cautious criticizing Democrats.

    I think there will be plenty of (valid, non-misogynistic) criticism and protest of Clinton’s presidency by those select few progressive movements, especially about her foreign policy.

    Her foreign policy may stand out simply because she’s a warmonger and a colonialist, but she’s also a corporate toady who will bend over backwards to appease oil interests, finance interests, and what-have-you. This makes it particularly aggravating to hear people support her on the grounds of climate change; yes, Trump denies it but Clinton supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership which would effectively ban any action to address climate change, and which lasts significantly longer than a President’s term in office.

    But she has to be President before we can get to that point, and I think it’s a false equivalency to assume as many progressive agendas will be blocked by Clinton as by Trump.

    I’m still baffled by this idea that we need to work to get Clinton into office just so we can work on getting her out again.

    It’s true that Trump will veto more progressive legislation than Clinton, but Clinton can do much more damage simply by virtue of being a Democrat; as president, she’d be a major figure in the Democratic Party and she would use that influence to move the Democrats to the right.

    Worse, half the reason Trump is so scary is because Obama has spent the last eight years sowing the seeds of dictatorship by dramatically expanding executive power and if Trump wins he’ll be able to wield that power. If Clinton wins, she’s far less likely to abuse executive power but incredibly likely to expand it further— meaning the next election will be higher stakes and worse odds. I’m already looking towards 2020 or 2024 and I’m worried that Clinton will be the Hindenburg to Trump’s Hitler; the accidental enabler who definitely didn’t intend to make him a dictator.