A really interesting analysis. Could you do the same analysis, but now with votes going from the LPC (back) to the NDP? Right now the LPC is stealing about half of the NDP support, going from 17% to 9% or so (Canada wide) What if they only take half of that? I suspect that would be a bigger effect than losing some of the support the LPC has taken from the CPC.
About peaking too soon, it is all driven by the orange buffoon south of the border. If Trump follows Danielle Smith’s (and possible other Canadian conservatives’) request of reducing the 51st state talk until the elections are done, then Canadians may put more weight on affordability, housing and those kind of issues. If he keeps talking about 51st state threats, the Liberals will have no problem staying at the peak.
I think you’re selling the vast majority of Canadians short. No one with critical thinking skills will buy Agent Orange going quiet and magically think that issue is no longer relevant. In fact, I’d argue Canadians would see it as obvious chicanery.
I think it’s more accurate to posit that now that PP’s getting looked at critically, Canadians don’t like what they see. They are no longer concerned with Trudeau, but they are concerned with a “leader” who refuses to get a security clearance, whose language for the past 3 years is almost identical to MAGA’s, and there are hostile nations who want him, specifically, in power. Despite being belligerent and loud, the far right only holds sway over a small percentage of Canadians. The vast majority want a society based on “Peace, order, and good government”.
Smith seems committed to her PragerU speech tomorrow, and there’s no way that isn’t good for a week worth of news cycle. After that the next round of scheduled tariff shenanigans is scheduled to kick off April 2/3
If Carney and the Liberals can’t keep the next four weeks focused on the conflict with the USA, they deserve to lose
Heck, if attention starts to wander they can just pick an open policy war with Smith. Go completely nuclear and dominate the national news for weeks. There’s no downside for them. It wouldn’t even hurt them in any Alberta seat that’s in play for them.
I was just writing that given that the CPC appears to have gotten the White House to understand that the 51st state talk and tariffs are hurting their election chances, Trump could decide to carve out a temporary 3 month exemption for Canada just to help the CPC.
And then the car tariff of all non US cars landed. I guess nobody needs to make any effort to keep elbows up the theme for the next 5 weeks.
I’ve been wondering the same, however, given that J and J worked together previously to keep a government and priorities viable, might we not see some form of “cooperation” if the vote-splitting danger was too great?
No, this is not some kind of 34 dimensional chess on the part of the NDP. It is a realization that when it really matters and the future of the country is at stake, the NDP has nothing to offer.
I did mean to suggest that - only that they too must clearly see the danger and priorities and could “do the right thing” if it came down to necessity.
This is the most clickbait title I've seen you post and I love it. I was prepared to read a horrendously bad take and make some comments about it. Then I read the entire article and I disagree with none of it. Perfection.
Voting efficiency is certainly a key concept and your application of it to the LPC is enlightening. If my memory serves me, Liberal voting historically has been more efficient in past elections. With two new leaders facing their first federal election, the ability to effectively communicate a detailed platform to voters should be a priority. The best thing about an election is that for engaged Canadians, "hope" is what springs the optimism we need in these trying times regardless of political stripe.
Good question. Agree with the idea that as long as Trump and Smith have media presence, Liberals can stay strong in the polls. Moving forward, Liberal messaging should continue to lean heavy on Smiths appalling public appearances, her ‘demands list” and Poilievre’s outrageous reasoning around his refusal to get a security clearance. This Conservative Party ‘bad-faith’ behaviour makes them vulnerable and imo, unelectable.
.. ‘Headline - Narrative Driving’ .. for your ‘Daily Manufactured Opinion ‘CONTENT.. (by ‘desperately probing the Downside Of Up’ - as if ‘It’s NEWS .. ?) Are you actually ‘seeking & tracking - ‘Peaked Too Soon - PM Carney’ POLLS ? 🦎🏴☠️🍁
That sound you hear is Jenni Byrne’s head exploding 🤯
And it’s a symphony to my ears! I hope they’re picking up detritus in St. John’s and Victoria!
A really interesting analysis. Could you do the same analysis, but now with votes going from the LPC (back) to the NDP? Right now the LPC is stealing about half of the NDP support, going from 17% to 9% or so (Canada wide) What if they only take half of that? I suspect that would be a bigger effect than losing some of the support the LPC has taken from the CPC.
About peaking too soon, it is all driven by the orange buffoon south of the border. If Trump follows Danielle Smith’s (and possible other Canadian conservatives’) request of reducing the 51st state talk until the elections are done, then Canadians may put more weight on affordability, housing and those kind of issues. If he keeps talking about 51st state threats, the Liberals will have no problem staying at the peak.
I think you’re selling the vast majority of Canadians short. No one with critical thinking skills will buy Agent Orange going quiet and magically think that issue is no longer relevant. In fact, I’d argue Canadians would see it as obvious chicanery.
I think it’s more accurate to posit that now that PP’s getting looked at critically, Canadians don’t like what they see. They are no longer concerned with Trudeau, but they are concerned with a “leader” who refuses to get a security clearance, whose language for the past 3 years is almost identical to MAGA’s, and there are hostile nations who want him, specifically, in power. Despite being belligerent and loud, the far right only holds sway over a small percentage of Canadians. The vast majority want a society based on “Peace, order, and good government”.
Smith seems committed to her PragerU speech tomorrow, and there’s no way that isn’t good for a week worth of news cycle. After that the next round of scheduled tariff shenanigans is scheduled to kick off April 2/3
If Carney and the Liberals can’t keep the next four weeks focused on the conflict with the USA, they deserve to lose
Heck, if attention starts to wander they can just pick an open policy war with Smith. Go completely nuclear and dominate the national news for weeks. There’s no downside for them. It wouldn’t even hurt them in any Alberta seat that’s in play for them.
I was just writing that given that the CPC appears to have gotten the White House to understand that the 51st state talk and tariffs are hurting their election chances, Trump could decide to carve out a temporary 3 month exemption for Canada just to help the CPC.
And then the car tariff of all non US cars landed. I guess nobody needs to make any effort to keep elbows up the theme for the next 5 weeks.
This one of the best explanations I’ve read about how polling stats work and how it’s actually playing out so far - thank you!
I’ve been wondering the same, however, given that J and J worked together previously to keep a government and priorities viable, might we not see some form of “cooperation” if the vote-splitting danger was too great?
No, this is not some kind of 34 dimensional chess on the part of the NDP. It is a realization that when it really matters and the future of the country is at stake, the NDP has nothing to offer.
I did mean to suggest that - only that they too must clearly see the danger and priorities and could “do the right thing” if it came down to necessity.
Interesting but in the best interest of Canada we cannot afford PP :-(
https://substack.com/@calluramichael491850/note/c-104417178?r=1ii73h&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Nice work, Evan!
This is the most clickbait title I've seen you post and I love it. I was prepared to read a horrendously bad take and make some comments about it. Then I read the entire article and I disagree with none of it. Perfection.
Voting efficiency is certainly a key concept and your application of it to the LPC is enlightening. If my memory serves me, Liberal voting historically has been more efficient in past elections. With two new leaders facing their first federal election, the ability to effectively communicate a detailed platform to voters should be a priority. The best thing about an election is that for engaged Canadians, "hope" is what springs the optimism we need in these trying times regardless of political stripe.
Good question. Agree with the idea that as long as Trump and Smith have media presence, Liberals can stay strong in the polls. Moving forward, Liberal messaging should continue to lean heavy on Smiths appalling public appearances, her ‘demands list” and Poilievre’s outrageous reasoning around his refusal to get a security clearance. This Conservative Party ‘bad-faith’ behaviour makes them vulnerable and imo, unelectable.
.. ‘Headline - Narrative Driving’ .. for your ‘Daily Manufactured Opinion ‘CONTENT.. (by ‘desperately probing the Downside Of Up’ - as if ‘It’s NEWS .. ?) Are you actually ‘seeking & tracking - ‘Peaked Too Soon - PM Carney’ POLLS ? 🦎🏴☠️🍁
Not sure what you are complaining about, but I think the analysis by Evan is insightful.
What % of Canadians - this Week - might Read/Ponder the Headline ?
What % of Canadians will read/retain - a single word of the CONTENT ?
What if the Headline was .. (go ahead - fill in the blank.. be ‘Creative !
THANKS 🦎🏴☠️🍁