Who even bothered to watch? This is the only debate Rogers removed from its library.
What happened?
| Date | Likes | Dislikes | Like % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 27, 2023 | 5 | 138 | 3.5% |
| Jan 23, 2026 | 138 | 266 | 34% |
| Mar 22, 2026 | 163 | 277 | 37% |
| May 10, 2026 | 181 | 282 | 39% |
| Today | 197 | 298 | 40% |
This piece has a completely different profile from my others.
A few observations:
The initial pile-on was extraordinary. 5 likes vs. 138 dislikes in the first weeks is not organic disagreement — that's a mobilized audience.
Rawlson King has an active, loyal following, and when this piece dropped they came en masse. That initial ratio (97% dislikes) is almost never random.
Here's what a 50/50 like/dislike split likely means:
I'm writing about genuinely divisive topics. On a platform built around debating Canadian politics and civic issues, a perfect split is actually a sign I am engaging with real fault lines in public opinion — not just preaching to the choir. If I was writing about something uncontroversial, I'd have 95% likes and no one would care.
I have a clear, defined point of view. Wishy-washy "on the one hand, on the other hand" pieces rarely get disliked. People dislike things they actively disagree with, which means i'm staking out a position clearly enough that people can react to it.
MY audience is genuinely split.
Unpublished attracts readers from across the political spectrum in Canada. A 50/50 response suggests I'm reaching a broad audience, not just people who already agree with me.
What it's NOT a sign of: Bad writing, poor reasoning, or that I should change my approach.
Some of the most impactful political commentary is polarizing by design. If I was hoping for broad approval, the trick would be to pick less partisan topics — but that would likely come at the cost of engagement and impact.
| Opinion | Likes | Dislikes | Like % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cycling in Ottawa | 34 | 28 | 55% |
| Lead Pipes | 28 | 23 | 55% |
| Sidewalks | 23 | 28 | 45% |
My practical, solution-focused pieces (cycling infrastructure, lead pipes with under-sink filter proposals) consistently land around 55/45 in my favour. People respond well to the "here's a concrete fix" angle. My project manager instincts are an asset there.
The sidewalks piece flips negative, and I think the reason is specific: the "DEI politician" framing.
My underlying argument — that councillor King was making an intellectually inconsistent move by opposing accessibility infrastructure — is actually a strong one, and council agreed (16-7 vote).
But that particular phrase will cause a chunk of readers to stop engaging with the argument and just dislike the piece, regardless of whether they agree on sidewalks. I lost the persuadable middle on that one.
The overall pattern across my work is: a net positive writer on the platform, but occasionally I hand my opponents an easy reason to dismiss me.
Strong, blunt language is part of my voice and it clearly attracts readers — but it's worth asking whether a particular phrase is sharpening my arguments or just being a lightning rod. I am being the nail that sticks up.
The 50/50 I perceive overall is probably the average of "winning on substance, losing some on tone."
Not a bad place to be for someone clearly positioning for this run at Rideau-Rockcliffe.
| Date | Likes | Dislikes | Like % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 27, 2023 | 5 | 138 | 3.5% |
| Jan 23, 2026 | 138 | 266 | 34% |
| Mar 22, 2026 | 163 | 277 | 37% |
| May 10, 2026 | 181 | 282 | 39% |
| Today | 197 | 298 | 40% |
The long-term trend is clearly in my favour. From October 2023 to now, new readers — people who found this piece cold, without the political moment driving them — vote roughly 2:1 in my favour. MY core argument (you can't quit an elected duty and then call it an accomplishment) is holding up with neutral readers over time.
The most recent window is interesting. Since May 10th, it's gone +16 likes, +16 dislikes — exactly 50/50.
The piece is still alive nearly three years later, which is unusual, and it's found a balanced ongoing readership.
The bottom line: this is my most controversial piece by far, but also potentially my most durable.
The argument is solid civic accountability — it's the timing (hot political moment, King's base was activated) that cratered the early numbers. I was right to track it over time.
No comments:
Post a Comment