Are The Polls Tightening?

On Leger, Abacus, And EKOS

Sunday morning saw a Federal Abacus poll showing the CPC lead down to 19%, and the CPC vote down 3% to 41%. It’s a sample that ended on Tuesday, which matters. But most of all, it’s not the first poll that has shown some softness in the CPC position since Trudeau’s appearance at the interference inquiry. Leger last week had a 16% lead, down 1% since the last time they polled but down 6% since their first September release. EKOS, which has been volatile in the snapshots we’ve seen, showed a 12% lead and now is apparently going to be releasing a CPC +9 poll.

I’ve been hesitant to buy into the idea of any form of poll tightening for a reason - most of what has passed for tightening in recent months has been head fakes. The three nights of byelections have all proven the same. There hasn’t been any actual sustained tightening, just occasional pollsters trading off the occasional 16 point lead while everyone else was around 20. Now, there’s movement in at least 3 pollsters, so it's worth noting.

None of the polling in Leger or Abacus has taken place since we’ve known it’d be Trump redux, which suggests whatever movement has taken place is about domestic conditions. It’s probably accurate to say Poilievre is paying a price for the refusal to get a security clearance; it also goes without saying that Poilievre would easily win the biggest majority government since 1984 on anything resembling Leger or Abacus. But it’s also clear I’ve been more dismissive of the chance of a polling change than I should be because of my own entrenchment in the idea the PM should go. I maintain I’m right, but at some point that’s neither here nor there.

So, if the polls are tightening, if even just a bit, what does it mean? Are we potentially going to see competitiveness? Or are the Liberals still fucked?

…

The dirty secret of Canadian politics these days is that Pierre Poilievre is not, actually, that impressive of a politician. He makes tactically befuddling choices all of the time, he seeks out divisive issues instead of trying to show his ability to unify, and he feels oftentimes one note. His inability to apologize for errors or to back down when proven wrong - like when he quoted an erroneous Fox News report about the Buffalo crash near the border last fall and then lied about time zones for the next 48 hours instead of just saying “Fox is usually reliable in matters of reporting and I had no reason to disbelieve them” - hasn’t yet but couldn’t prove problematic. The lack of substance to his sloganeering is troubling, and will likely not hold through a campaign.

I compared Poilievre to Tony Abbott recently, and that comparison holds - a staunch conservative who replaced a much more moderate right wing leader, who loves 3 word slogans and hates carbon taxes. But Abbott is more than just a cautionary sign of who Poilievre is, he’s a warning of what will happen if Poilievre leaves things vague right through the election. Partially due to the Gillard-Rudd swap and partially due to concerns that Abbott would go too far, the polls tightened in Australia, forcing Tony Abbott to reassure the voters about what he wouldn’t do. He spelled out five things he wouldn’t cut or change - health, education, pensions, the GST, and the public broadcasters. (He then went on to propose cuts to health and education and the ABC/SBS, but that's besides the point.)

Governmental unpopularity only goes so far, and it seems like Poilievre is finally starting to get the scrutiny of being the presumptive PM. He will have to answer more questions at some point, and his frankly bad answers to the security clearance questions seems to have done some damage. But I also think it’s copium of the highest order to think that this movement is that important. It is a lot easier for the Liberals to get back to 28% of the vote and down 12% than to get from 28% to 32%. In the same way, the voters who make it the upper band of that CPC support are, definitionally, the party’s softest supporters. Losing some of the votes you never expected to keep isn’t that big a deal.

If the polls continue to tighten because of the Trump effect, then I’d be worried if I’m in the CPC Leader’s office. The Conservatives losing a few points is not, in itself, the beginning of a crisis, nor do I think it’s the start of an inevitable cycle. But Trump is as much an opportunity for Poilievre as he is for Trudeau. In the same way that Trudeau can show he’s tough and remind people he managed Trump well once before, Poilievre can use Trump as a point of triangulation - a way of showing he’s not one of those conservatives. Poilievre will be given opportunities by Trump to signal a break between the CPC and MAGA, which he should take. If he plays the cards of Trump well we could be talking about his lead being at 25% rather quickly, if the threat of Trump is seen to show just how much less crazy our Conservatives are.

The honest answer to questions about the polls is simple: it looks like, for the first time in a while, you can make a sincere, non-cherry-picking case for some Conservative weakness. It’s not a big amount of weakness. It’s not a completely inarguable sample of polls. And it’s still highly likely a Conservative landslide. But there’s been a bit of tightening.

If nothing else, it reminds us that Poilievre isn’t infallible. Guess it’s now on the government to take fucking advantage.