— Feature, Musings —03.12.2025 08:45 AM
My latest: ten reasons Carney could win
All the polls show the same thing. The race has tightened up. The big Conservative lead has vanished. The Liberals are competitive again.
Could Mark Carney win? Of course he could. Ten reasons.
1. Trudeau is gone. Towards the end, Justin Trudeau wasn’t just his party’s leader. He had become a political death sentence – for them. The Liberals had become very, very unpopular, and Trudeau wasn’t the only reason. But he was the main one. When he was forced out – by Chrystia Freeland, by his caucus, by reality – Liberals who had parked their vote with the Conservatives or the NDP were always going to come back. They have.
2. Conservatives didn’t have a Plan B. In politics, you always have to plan for change. The Tories didn’t. Justin Trudeau is a narcissist, they’d say, and they were right. But they had convinced themselves that his narcissism would persuade him to stay. That’s not how narcissism works. Narcissists always leave so that someone else can clean up their messes. The Conservatives – arrogantly, stupidly – didn’t plan for Trudeau’s departure. It shows.
3. Liberals overwhelmingly support Carney. There’s a name for winning 90 per cent of the vote: a landslide. Mark Carney won his party’s leadership by a landslide. Conservatives can bleat about the number of Liberals who ultimately voted, or weave conspiracies about marginal candidates like Ruby Dhalla. But the bottom line is that Mark Carney won, big. And Tories are now doing what they did three times in a row with Justin Trudeau: underestimating the Liberal leader.
4. Carney is likeable. In politics, you don’t need to be the most likable person on Earth. You just need to be more likable than the alternative. And the fact is, a growing number of Canadians don’t find Pierre Poilievre particularly likable. For a long time, Poilievre’s angry man shtick worked – because a majority of Canadians were mad at Justin Trudeau, too. With Trudeau gone, their anger has disappeared, like air out of a balloon. Donald Trump has cornered the market on anger, and voters want something different from him. They want someone who loves Canada, like they do. Not a perpetually angry guy who says that Canada is “broken.”
[To read more, subscribe here.]
A Liberal Minority Government (and not a Majority) because:
1. I don’t see Team Red making inroads in Quebec. Carney’s poor French will hurt him/Liberals
2. Liberals will lose seats in B.C., and are vulnerable in the 905
3. Conservatives are strong on social media; and their messaging remains effective. This will keep them from sinking
4. Poilièvre gets politics; he and his wife will be formidable on the campaign trail
5. Poilièvre will manhandle Carney in a debate. It’ll be a beat down
6. Liberals best hope is that the trade war continues to heat up; if it subsides, they’ll be on the Opposition side
7. Throughout this trade war, the provinces have done the heavy lifting, especially Doug Ford. Less impactful has been the Liberal government
He could but the polls show the NDP dropping and the 2 main parties in a dead heat. If he takes the chance he could win big but as Brian Lilley has stated before campaigns matter and the Conservatives may bounce. IMHO he may wait with guaranteed NDP support until he is sure of a victory as there is a good possibility NDP will no longer be there to prop him up in the event he only gets a minority government. Or he pulls the pin and takes a chance. Meh who knows
Though when a party is high on the smell of its own farts it assumes that everyone else is so let the games begin.
Carney: Likeable. Intelligent. Steady. Trusted. Pragmatic. Thoughtful
Poilievre: Relies on a baloney factory to churn out complete bullshit, some fall for it but most don’t. Reminds voters of Trump because of his style, his baloney style, stupid slogans and stupid intentions and agenda – his agenda isn’t on side with Canadians, and he sure has an agenda, just like Trump did. His nastiness is unparalleled – insults everybody who questions him, just like Trump does.
Hilarious take.
Art literally stole two of Pierre’s ideas.
And he is trying to tell you that the fact he is getting rid of the carbon tax(which 10 minutes ago folks like you were claiming put money IN people’s pockets but I digress) and replacing it with a tax on things like steel while claiming that won’t cost the consumer anything. That is what an Oxford and Harvard education gets you. Are you actually buying that schtick? I have news. It is going to cost you a heck of a lot more than the billionaires backing Art.
I agree Conservatives didn’t have a Plan B. But more specifically — and I’m not sure how much the CPC could have controlled this — demonization of Trudeau had become almost the sole rhetorical weapon that the Conservative ecosystem was employing, for years now. It has become so personalized. The whole “fuck Trudeau” thing, which I always winced at, even though I dislike Trudeau. The implicit message in all of that is “Trudeau is the problem”.
Again, I think that’s as much as, or even more, the fault of Extremely Online Conservative supporters. The CPC itself did focus on the carbon tax to a fair degree. It shows us, though, that communications and messaging discipline can be extremely difficult in this age of social media.
Agreed: the Conservatives didn’t have a Plan B.
Valid criticism except … no one’s saying what Plan B should have looked like?
Point taken, we’re in the realm of what historians call conterfactuals. It’s pure speculation as to what the CPC could have done, but if I’m going to go there I’d say they should have focused even more on policy and urged their proxies not to focus so much on JT personally. To take an example yes PP talked the axe the carbon tax thing but there are a bunch of policy areas he barely mentioned or only paid lip service to: immigration, fiscal responsibility/government spending, our disgusting shirking of NATO spending responsibilities, DEI (which is not popular with the gettable CPC voters and I’ve heard PP say dick about it). That’s just a very quick list.
It was why Justin was hoping for a T win.
I respectfully disagree. They were already floating plenty of anti-Carney propaganda almost a year ago, long before Trudeau announced his resignation. Turns out, they were right. My slight fear was if Carney didn’t get elected, then the Conservatives would have to come up with plan C.
Fair point but Carney just doesn’t have the personal negatives that JT does, so going after Carney is not going to have a ton of political upside.
It’s fine to have personal attacks against an opponent is a prime strategy IF that person is vulnerable, unlikeable, has big polling negatives. But none of those really apply to Carney.
Meanwhile, on policy it’s a target-rich environment for the CPC in my opinion. There are the areas I listed above. In addition, what about crime? There’s a ton of low hanging fruit there. Focus on that. Our lax bail laws. Fentanyl and money-laundering. How about this for something bold? Vow to go after the Hell’s Angels and all other organized crime groups behind the fentanyl trade. Including invoking the notwithstanding clause — because the Angels have become expert at manipulating laws. Take the gloves off. It’s stuff like that that can differentiate you from the Liberals, which is desperately needed, and they should have been doing this.
Doc,
Pierre wasn’t my choice for leader, but I at least have heard him speak on all these issues. In addition, his friend and colleague Pedant has been present here for ages and has more often than not echoed Poilièvre’s positions. So, we can’t say he hasn’t gone there. This morning, there is a new CPC ad on CBC News Network. Only caught bits and pieces of it as I was writing something on this website, but it has to be an improvement on those dreadful red from hell ads previously run against Carney. That face manipulation was way over the top and negated the message in a New York minute. In short, ineffectual. They need to do much better. At least the flag ad was OK.
Kind of depends on how you define P-L-A-N: serial attack ads and personal attacks in the House are not a plan. It’s a tactic, sometimes effective, sometimes not. As long as Trudeau was PM, it was essentially ineffective against Carney. So, now in Round Two with Carney as PM, it remains to be seen if this so-called plan can get traction and reverse the most recent polling trend. I have my doubts, to put it charitably. Again, the next election won’t be about Trump. That’s conventional wisdom, and that is WRONG. It will be all about which guy he or she voter wants to have a beer with, and Carney wins that one hands down.
The average voter is pretty naive if he or she thinks that Art would even have a beer with them. And what are they going to discuss? The gold old days when Goldman Sachs almost brought the world economy down while playing both sides of the sub prime mortgage market or perhaps the various and sundry tax tricks Brookfield uses? And would his billionaire supporters join them in this little coffee klatch? I suspect not.
Warren,
Unless Carney does something absolutely stupid, the Liberals will take the lead and hold it consistently until election day. So the odds are at least two to one now that Carney’s Liberals will win. I expect a Liberal majority.
I suspect they’ll be around 185 seats
No, I think Poilievre does best when it’s a dead heat. He’s a first rate communicator and debater – and those strengths come to the fore when it’s an even match. Carney might have some public speaking skills, but before the laity? Or in a debate? He’s untested.
EmmRo,
Nice try, though. Most voters don’t find the leader likable. Carney so far isn’t liked or disliked. They will warm up to Carney long before they warm up to Pierre. It’s called political reality. So, Poilièvre has to deliver at least one knock-out punch, à la Mulroney, in an English language debate or he’s done in the election.
Warren,
I’ll be voting Conservative but we are already done as dinner.
Don’t be so negative. People are sick and tired of the Lieberals.
Carney? He’s more of the same.
Andrew,
With respect, the cold, hard reality that none of the boot-lickers or ass-kissers will tell the leader is that HE has to change the way he does retail politics to win. The drift is now a LIBERAL drift, and for us to win, Pierre has to show far more prime ministerial temperament and judgment than he has done so far. There is so much room for improvement if Poilièvre is willing to change. If he just keeps a going as he has, we lose. He must keep Ontario in the fold to win, and right now, they’re heading in the Liberals’ direction…
Warren,
Léger:
LPC: 37
CPC: 37
Nanos:
CPC: 36
LPC: 35
Ronald,
No one should take polling results from Nanos + Ekos seriously.
They’re super friendly Liberal pollsters.
(Unfamiliar with Léger)
I’m waiting for the next batch of numbers from Abacus Data.
They always have the most respondents in the field. And they seem the most trustworthy.
Leger is Postmedia’s pollster. They are considered the most accurate federal polling firm.
I was under the impression that Abacus had a very good reputation?
Gary, agreed.
Abacus’ most recent poll had 3500 participants.
Suspect we’ll see another poll early next week.
Always worth the wait
Warren,
Ford is really rubbing salt into the wound: breakfast with Carney… what’s next? A vacation together with their families?
Art is just humouring Ford.
Carney will continue the build nothing policy in Canada. New boss same as the old.
I know we are all supposed to move on from Justin as if the last 10 years was some sort of bad dream and line up like lemmings behind the next shiny new Liberal bauble that the billionaire class is backing but I just can’t resist. A friend of mine is one of the top people in the world on the history of photography. I suggested to him that perhaps Adam Scotti might be the subject of one of his scholarly works. I don’t have a response yet but I did check Adam’s cv. If he has been at Justin’s side for the last 20 years, he has been there taking snaps since he was 15. Can he ever not spew bullshit even about the most minor things? But, to be fair, math was not his best subject. We literally have the receipts(see the 2019 balanced budget etc etc etc) so perhaps it was an honest mistake.
Off topic – sorry for that, but I see in the news the Russians are looking for concessions in a ceasefire – The Americans and NATO, should be arming UKRAINE to the teeth – then the Russians would accept the terms of a ceasefire –
Curious,
Putin concessions are nothing more than a false flag operation. He wants all of Eastern Europe and will start by overrunning Ukraine as soon as the TrumpIdiotTM agrees to look the other way.
We agree Ronald – he has nostalgia for the Soviet Unions power and reach –
Yes, something Churchill said about appeasement and feeding a crocodile.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/guilbeault-expected-shuffled-out-of-post
“Getting rid” of the carbon and Guilbeault. Wonder if this will have blow back.
https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2025/01/27/list-of-mps-not-re-offering-gains-three-in-two-days-with-one-change-of-heart/448304/
Wonder what affect this will have if he calls a snap election?
Brookfield Asset Management has used global tax havens and loopholes to avoid taxes on its Canary Wharf properties in London and Manhattan West holdings in New York. According to the Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research (CICTAR), the firm’s management is spread out among various holding companies and subsidiaries in the island tax havens of Jersey and Bermuda. I expect the Conservatives to raise questions about that in the future.
Saying that you were the head of tax avoiding BAM and that you had a 13 year career at Goldman Sachs that played a huge role in the 07/08 financial crisis is not the flex the Liberals think it is. As I said earlier:
BIP paid $1.62 US per unit in 2024. 53% of that was from Bermudian entities and 12.51% was a return of capital. The return of capital is also from Bermuda and it is particularly attractive because it is not taxable. It just reduces your adjusted cost base. This is exactly the same play as the Income Trust tax dodge that Flaherty shut down in 2006. BIP earns the money tax free in Bermuda and then distributes some of it as a return of capital which remains tax free until you sell the unit and then you get favourable capital gains treatment on the sale.”
Why the billionaires are backing him. Not so sure what everyone else’s excuse is.
Martin,
We’re lucky to have you here to do this superb work for the rest of us. I worry this type of stuff will be fluffed off as inside baseball. Put another way, the old double standard is alive and well: when Liberals favour millionaires and billionaires, that’s hunky-dory, but when or if Conservatives do it, that’s heretical.
Fair enough, but I really don’t the average voter is going to care that much about something like that. Tories need to focus on bread and butter issues and things that normal people care about and can relate to. Economy, inflation, crime, immigration etc.
We are supposed to be all in on our hatred for Trump(although posting 99 wine memes while then the same day posting about taking a vacay in Florida as a friend of mine did the other day is quite funny…but I digress…cue all jokes about the average voter). The Canadian ambassador to the US, Kristen Hillman, said yesterday that Art has similar “interests” and similar backgrounds to T. Whoa…that is not the flex she thinks it was. But, you’re right, the average voter won’t care.
Martin,
The good news is that the PMO she supported Carney. The bad news is she can forget the big job in DC. Pity that.