On social media, many have said surge for Liberals under Mark Carney is temporary and he does not have a chance. Obviously no one can say for certain what will happen, but I believe many reasons given why he won’t win are false and will show why despite those I still believe he is favorite to win next election
- Kamala Harris saw similar bump and still lost – Canada is not the United States and after what a disaster Trump has been, it seems logical that maybe Canadians will want to avoid making the same mistake.
- John Turner & Kim Campbell were in the lead for a short time but lost badly. Both are true, but there are some key differences. Neither faced a threat of economic harm coming from US like Carney will and both had centrist opponents in Mulroney and Chretien who were safe places to go. Poilievre is not a centrist like those two and far more risky. If it were Kim Campbell vs. Preston Manning or John Turner vs. Preston Manning I suspect both Campbell & Turner would have won. When people are unhappy alternative must be acceptable and Poilievre is a lot riskier than Chretien or Mulroney were.
- People are sick and tired of Liberals and mad at past 10 years so no matter who is leader won’t vote for them. Actually history shows changing leaders can allow parties to come back by changing leaders. Don Getty in 1992, Gordon Campbell in 2010, Dalton McGuinty in 2012, Jason Kenney in 2022 all were trailing badly and had very bad approval ratings just like Trudeau. In each case, they were dumped and party chose a new leader and won the next election. People want parties that listen to them and when change leaders and direction, that is a sign of listening to concerns.
- Carney was a disaster as Bank of England governor. Most Canadians have little knowledge about what happened over there, but few saying this are about the last people one should listen to. Liz Truss who lasted 49 days as PM and tanked both her party and the pound is saying this so if she dislikes Carney, that is probably a plus.
- Young Canadians are mad and will not vote Liberal. That is true but doesn’t mean Poilievre will win. For starters, Boomers tend to have a larger turnout so if Liberals leading amongst boomers; good chance they win as that cohort actually tends to show up on election day. Also while young Canadians may be upset at Liberals, not all are going Conservative. Young women tend to be fairly progressive and its unlikely the many millennials and Gen Z who were at climate marches, black lives matter protests are going to turn around and vote for a party that has radically different values than they do. May not go Liberal, but doesn’t mean will go Conservative.
- Immigrants hate Liberals and overwhelmingly going for Poilievre. There is little evidence of this and while possible Poilievre doing better with immigrants than O’Toole; immigrants are a diverse group and far from monolithic. Never mind while Tories are not a racist party, the minority who are racist are far more likely to vote Conservative than Liberal and for some immigrants; they will not want to vote for a party that attracts people who don’t want them here. Never mind immigrants are diverse in viewpoints anyways with yes some being conservative, but some progressive too.
- Vaccine mandates, gun bans will defeat Liberals. This is nonsense. Types angry about this were never voting Liberal in first place so won’t matter.
- Pollsters are skewing things in favour of Liberals. I have said to everyone regardless of ideology that pollsters do not skew things and they report what they are seeing. Just because you don’t like it or doesn’t fit your worldview doesn’t make it false. Off course polls are just a snapshot and can change.
- Standard of living is getting worse so people won’t re-elect party responsible for this. If this were true, explain why Ford is on track for an even bigger majority later this month or why some provincial governments winning. Provinces every bit as responsible for problems as federal government. Maybe people realize governments can only do so much or don’t buy idea Poilievre will solve those issues.
- Every new leader gets a honeymoon but once faces Poilievre it will disappear. Not necessarily and some leaders like Trudeau pulled into lead and stayed there except for a brief period and on election day did better than honeymoon. Poilievre is not a great debater. His an attack dog which appeals to some but turns off just as many and in these tough times could just as easily hurt him as help.
These are just some of common attacks. Yes it is possible Poilievre does win as I don’t have a crystal ball, but anyone assuming Tories have next election in bag are wrong. As explained here and previous blogs, I believe indicators and directions make Liberals the favorite even if not certain.
afiscalconservativepointofview 
My opinion on those arguments:
1) Agreed. Different countries and MUCH more dramatic. Even at her best, Harris was up by about 3-4 points, and Biden was down about that much. Not a 15-point swing overnight.
2) I also agree there, but for different reasons. Most of the now-Carney voters were undecided or in the NDP column in earlier polls, so they weren’t really coming from the Conservatives. They may have parked with Singh, but more just said “a pox on all your houses”. These weren’t really votes Poilievre ever had a chance with, but rather a product of elimination. For Carney to lose them, the NDP would need to change leaders first, and then pull a Jack Layton. Unless he stumbles on the trail…he’d have to make critical mistakes to dislodge these voters.
3) Correct. A leadership change can be a game changer. Although, in a couple of those cases (Campbell and McGuinty) they were helped by terrible opposition leaders. Poilievre has never been tested on the campaign trail either.
4) Those who would think Carney was a disaster there are the type of voters who would never vote Liberal to begin with. That said, his role in general could play a role for some, as described in the next section.
5) On this point, I would have to partially disagree. Even the most pro-Carney polls show the weakest results are with younger people. He would have to do a lot to bring them in, since they are where the anger is greatest – albeit with an enormous gender gap. For young males, it is unlikely as they have moved hard to the right overall and the CPC often gets close to, if not over, 50% among them (depending on how high the PPC is). Young females – especially White ones – clearly are on the left more than any other demographic but are not reliable voters, that said, with the NDP imploding they could swing to the LPC more out of fear than anything.
Additionally, working class voters have swung rightward so the map may be different anyway than in 2019 and 2021 even if the results are the same and that’s a group that Carney will have a hard time reaching since he could be seen as a banker and elitist that is not in tune with them. The argument about benefits of tax cuts and who they benefit rarely play out these days, since those who are working class (in blue collar fields with only a high school or college/CEGEP diploma) often feel they want the opportunity, not the handouts, and feel the cultural issues have become too much of an obsession by progressives (even if they aren’t socially conservative). Many of them may have voted Liberal or NDP in the past but it’s less likely they will this time. Meanwhile, more highly educated voters tend to prefer people inside their circle and are much more supportive of cultural changes. Carney may do even better than Trudeau did among that group.
6) Agreed. They are not monolithic, and while I think Poilievre is doing a bit better, that is likely more a function of class than anything with more working class voters and younger male voters swinging over. But that could be partially offset elsewhere.
7) Exactly. Those are voters the CPC risks losing to the PPC by returning to the centre, but they represent maybe 15-20% of the electorate that are not going for a progressive party no matter what.
8) It’s actually possible there is some skewing, but it doesn’t change the trendlines. The reason being that some more educated voters may have been comfortable voting for O’Toole, but not Poilievre. Conversely, working class voters may have seen enough of the Liberals (or gave up on the NDP) and feel that Carney is just a continuation even if they had voted for them in the past, creating a greater gap with them. We also don’t know how turnout will break with younger voters since there is an enormous gender gap there and also the fact that older voters are where Carney does best. Only the election can solve those.
9) You make good points. Also, that goes back to the age, gender and education issues. For older people, as well as higher educated, they ARE doing quite well, and tend to be reliable voters and have returned to the Liberal fold quite nicely. The broken country is with demographics where the Liberals collapsed with, and only are seeing slight improvement A high turnout election would be Poilievre’s best friend right now, which is a reversal from before.
10) It’s possible it is just a honeymoon, but that we will know on the debate stage and at the campaign trail. The NDP collapse makes it less likely that Carney will fall too much though. Quebec is the ultimate wildcard though, since Carney’s French isn’t great, although that would help the Bloc more than the Conservatives (and, in fact, potentially hurt the Conservatives too as they could gain a few seats due to splits not working in their favour as they would need some voters to move from the Bloc to the Liberals).
If I were to guess the current numbers, they would be CPC 40, LPC 37, NDP 10, BQ 7, GPC 3, PPC 2, others 1. Interestingly, the Conservatives could still gain seats even if the Liberals move up to a majority, due to the collapse of the NDP, although the Bloc numbers add uncertainty due to the factor of splits.
LikeLike
1. US is a lot more polarized so you will never get a 15 point swing. My view is more what goes up can come down and vice versa.
2. Generally agree although NDP could go up if you get a lot of strategic voting otherwise gain in areas where it is CPC-NDP race and I wouldn’t be surprised if that is where they focus to stay relevant which is bad news for Tories.
3. Agreed there
4. Agreed also
5. I think very unlikely LPC will win younger voters but not necessary they will go CPC either. Possible a lot just stay home and not vote at all too which benefits LPC.
6. In not just Canada, but US & UK seeing convergence between minorities and whites so not really a surprise as that was case with earlier groups like Irish or Italians.
7. Agreed and also think more likely to go PPC if clear CPC will win or has no chance. If close I suspect go CPC in end to stop LPC. Also may depend on riding where PPC does well in rural Prairies where CPC wins by astronomical margins but flops elsewhere, where vote splitting could cost CPC a seat.
8. With educated voters agree and know some anecdotally who voted for O’Toole but won’t for Poilievre. Scheer and O’Toole got almost same vote percentage but when look at breakdown on poll by poll basis, O’Toole did much better than Scheer in well off educated areas but lost ground in more working class where PPC gained or turnout fell.
9. That may be true. Ironically low turnout probably benefits Ford but seems in Ontario you have a fairly high number of Ford-Carney voters while few Poilievre-Crombie but definitely some Poilievre-stay home voters.
10. I agree unlikely Carney falls below 30% but off course lots of unknowns but I tend to like his chances. Not impossible both Liberals and Conservatives see higher vote share than 2021. Conservatives as pick up many PPC votes and Liberals as pick up some NDP.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with all 10 of your points – and I would add a #11 that I think matters to at least some voters across all of the generations. PP is a career politician (AKA a consummate insider) who has never navigated the real world, and has certainly never capably negotiated high stakes situations like Carney has, more than once. PP likes to raise false alarms and cover his lack of vision with tearing down those who don’t agree with him. Trump would eat him for breakfast. Carney is not a career pol but rather a seasoned, internationally respected leader who stays calm and presents a positive vision of how we can move ahead. He doesn’t flap and unlike PP, he is a highly credible candidate as PM as we face down and survive 4 years of Trump chaos. He will be able to mobilize other countries to a common cause of countering that chaos, and keep Canada intact for the long game.
LikeLike
Agreed and as someone who follows politics closely and known about him for over 20 years, he has always been one of my least favorite Conservative politicians. In fact in 2015, if I lived in his riding, I would have voted Liberal just to get rid of him and one of the few if not only ridings I would have done this in. As for those say best with Trump as both conservatives; Trump doesn’t care about ideology and wants what is best for him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kamala lost not because of the timing of any bump but because she was old news, a representative of the outgoing party and tainted by it. She promoted old ideas that did not address the new reality.
Ditto Mark Carney. Nice enough guy but demands a ceasefire now in favour of a two-state solution in which Hamas returns genocidal belligerents to the border to do it all over again. Like Kamala’s, this is an old idea, a failed idea. Carney either isn’t paying attention or he’s naive. It can’t happen again. But he also continues to promote diversity, equity and inclusion at a time when including the enemy can be fatal. Canada protects affirmative action programs in the Constitution so they aren’t going away but the DEI model and especially its high abrasive training model is over. The data show it doesn’t work except with young women who realize they can get more money just by asking.
Carney’s economics may be correct but he needs to communicate that instead of trying to promote his image as a wealthy neighbourhood goalie. He should be selling Canadians his vision not trying to look cool. And if he were trying to look cool, he’d need a makeover. Right now, his image pales next to Justin Trudeau’s.
The bump is not directly attributable to Carney himself but to the change of leadership. There would be a bump if Chrystia, Karina or Ruby were in the lead as well and endorsed by the party. If an election is held soon enough after the new PM assumes power, Carney might ride that bump to a relative victory. It is unlikely he would win simply because of the huge gap in numbers, even at 8%.
If an election is not held until October, the result will depend entirely on how Carney and Poilievre handle the media and questions about the pending election campaign. From what I’ve seen, Carney’s team has made several slips, including about the logo copyright. Casting Carney as an average joe goalie won’t win him the election. He needs to tell us what is so special about him, an outsider, that makes him better for the job than the devil we know with his long years of experience in political life. Governor of the Bank of England/Canada is not the same job as Prime Minister.
Of course changing leaders can aid a party’s fortune; it has already done that for the LPC. That doesn’t mean Carney will win; Canadians still need to be convinced he is better than the alternative.
To win, Poilievre needs to change his campaign tactics as well. He has already begun by addressing the threats of President Trump. He has promised military development of the Arctic, no men in women’s sport but other than that, a stay-out-of-the-bedroom approach. (Like so many in our society, Poilievre misunderstands the concept of transgenderism.). I think he should respond to Carney’s economics credentials and strategies by countering with a promise to introduce Milton Friedman’s negative income tax proposal for a basic income. Explain to Canadians why his populist Libertarianism is the best solution to individual poverty.
I don’t think pollsters have a pro-LPC bias but I do think Conservative voting intentions are under represented by the polls, not because of bias but because Conservative voters are consistently less likely to participate in telephone and/or internet polls. Up to 10 points is what data show.
Finally, I do not agree realistic criticism and/or probability assessments of likelihood of winning are fairly categorized as attacks when they are simple disagreements about the facts reflecting a different view of things from a different perspective.
LikeLike
I think Carney has many liabilities and if Trump wasn’t in white house or was more like first term and not so unhinged he would have a much tougher time. I feel based on what is happening in world, people will look for an experienced person to guide us through.
For polls I actually think reason Conservatives tend to outperform is their vote skews older who are more likely to show up. This time Liberals strongest with over 65 so could be opposite. Other is seems rural areas they massively under sample Conservatives and you saw that in last Alberta & Saskatchewan elections were polls were pretty accurate for cities but way off for rural. However since those go Conservative even in polls, only changes topline vote numbers not seat count as doesn’t matter if you win a riding by 40 points instead of 20.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Ontario numbers, especially, need sub-provincial samples. Even if the topline is tied or a slight Conservative lead, a uniform swing would suggest the Liberals would win more seats (something like 70L-50C). That said, I’d want to see if the rural ridings are seeing huge Conservative margins, which are wasteful, while I’d also want to see if the suburban areas are seeing narrow Liberal leads which would result in piling up seats. (On the flip side, those suburban ridings are where the NDP is always weakest, so the potential for Liberal gains aren’t as great there, while the urban core ridings have likely flipped on their heads – even if the Conservatives are hopeless there).
British Columbia is likely seeing big changes and the Liberals are probably benefiting the most by the NDP collapse, although the Conservatives are likely in okay shape too. The CPC, just by the collapse, is likely gaining the NDP seats in the interior/north and the upper Island since the LPC was always 3rd in those seats and they are more working class. However, in the GVRD especially, that is a big boost for the Liberals as many of them are strategic voters. The splits would probably give them a lot of seats as a result.
Interestingly, Atlantic Canada is where I think vote efficiency favors the Conservatives, since there are Liberal fortresses in Halifax, Moncton and Francophone New Brunswick. If Carney is polling super-high in those areas and the region as a whole is tied, I’d think the seat count would be about 19C-13L. Even a 3 to 5 point Liberal lead might just get the seat count to a tie.
Quebec is the real wild card, and that is where the campaign could make dramatic changes (which would mainly benefit the Bloc). Quebec is where a stronger Liberal vote could actually give the Conservatives some seats as there are ridings where the splits would move the CPC over the top with votes moving BQ –> LPC.
One thing surprising is that there is no movement to kick out Jagmeet Singh. If an election is not held early this spring, there will likely be a lot of pressure for that. If they are in single digits, they are likely losing official party status and will be left with maybe a small handful of seats by strong individual ridings in safe ridings (such as Vancouver East). If Carney doesn’t go early, the pressure will be huge for a leadership change to save the party.
LikeLike
For Ontario agreed LPC more efficient however also any riding Conservatives are over 50% they win and even if high 40s do so if at 45% which is on high side but some polls put them that high, it means probably north of 50% in almost 50 ridings so uniform swing won’t quite work here. I also suspect your urban core ridings any shifting is NDP to Liberal and Conservatives likely at or below 20% as these are progressive ridings that never go Conservative irrespective of political cycle. 905 belt tends to be swingiest. Also I would say heavily ethnic ridings could lead to some surprises.
For BC generally agree. Liberals should hold a good chunk if not most Lower Mainland but yes Tories in good shape win NDP ones in Interior and rural parts of Vancouver Island. South Island only possible if really strong splits on left and that would require Greens also doing really well.
Atlantic Canada, that is only true with New Brunswick as Liberals tend to win Francophone parts by bigger margins than Tories win Anglophone. Overall I suspect Liberals would hold most seats but possible lose a few rural. But the blue wave polls suggested back in December there no longer seems to be case.
For Quebec, matters more in Liberals vs. Bloc Quebecois. Tories would have to fall below 15% provincewide to be in danger of losing 10 seats they have, but have to rise to over 30% to go above 15 seats so really anything between 15-30% makes little difference in seats due to distribution of vote. Its more how Liberals vs. BQ are.
LikeLike