LPC Debate LiveBlog: Let’s Have Some Fun

Plus Polling Thoughts And More!

We’ve got a LPC debate tonight so I’ll be liveblogging the proceedings below, starting at 8PM EST. I’ll have full reactions to the debate with Ben Oates on the podcast feed as soon as possible, with coverage of Andrew Furey’s resignation as well. That said, I have thoughts on the other part of today’s leadership news, or at least leadership adjacent news, so let’s give you those as a little appetizer. (Thoughts on the polling deluge will come at 7PM.)

Debate Recap

It’s hard to judge debates, because they’re both about the debate as a debate and as a mechanism to change votes. Chrystia Freeland had a disastrous debate on both fronts, and it was a night that makes me confidence she won’t break 30% in the first round. She is running a horrible campaign - a change agent who had repeated opportunities to make that case and she didn’t tonight. She ran on her experience despite claiming she’s running against. She’s a bad debater, which also doesn’t help. It’s an ignominious capper on an impressive career, at least by the titles obtained.

Karina Gould did what she wanted to tonight, but I don’t think she had a good gameplan. She is a fundamentally Trump 1.0 candidate in a Trump 2.0 era, a candidate who thinks invoking perceived sexism and running to the left is the answer. It’s not. It’s a bad performance because it’s fundamentally unserious. It’s just a disaster and there’s nothing to say but that. That the NDPer on this CBC panel thinks she won it is proof of the unseriousness.

Mark Carney, however, was exquisite. He wasn’t perfect - he needs to slow his brain down a little bit, but in terms of what he said, it was where the party should be. He is articulating a serious, credible, intelligent path forward for the party. He is the right candidate for this moment and tonight cemented that.

9:55 PM - What the hell does you being a mother have to do with what you’ll do differently than Trudeau, Freeland?

9:54 PM - Freeland running a campaign against the Ottawa and then skipping an entire question about how she will be different than Justin Trudeau is just so pathetic. Gould’s answer isn’t much better - her only answer is to reconnect to the grassroots, also known as no actual policy differentiation.

I’d have preferred Carney stake out a bigger policy difference but he just threw the current PMO and Trudeau under the bus on caucus management and their insularity, which is hilarious.

9:44 PM - Karina Gould pretending there’s no savings from axing the carbon tax in saying that Carney’s math doesn’t add up is hilarious (if by hilarious you mean insipid and nonsensical).

Also everybody should read Ben Oates’ piece on Energy East instead of pretending that regulatory failure is why these things fail, and not because Energy East is moronic.

9:41 PM - I appreciate that Carney and Freeland are just admitting that the reason they’re ditching the carbon tax is political reality. It is genuinely good for politicians to admit what is true, instead of trying to claim that they’d had a conversion on the Road To Damascus.

Carney framing the industrial carbon tax as a way of keeping rebate checks is one hell of a way of squaring the circle. Also Freeland fuck off for throwing your arms around Kinew.

9:33 PM -There’s been some commentary that Carney needs to be more feisty, because he will need to be more aggressive against Pierre Poilievre. It’s true he’ll need to be punchier against Skippy, but can we please understand that if Carney came out throwing haymakers in a debate against two female opponents (plus Frank Baylis, I guess) who are being almost unnervingly polite, he would look like a nutter?

You match your tone to the tone you’re facing. If Poilievre goes punchy, have a counterpunch, but this isn’t a debate where feistiness was ever going to be rewarded.

9:27 PM - This health care section is good for the party but bad debating - it’s a lot of agreement on good ambitions, but nobody bombed or soared.

In more important news the lasagna was very good.

9:20 PM - Really disappointing that nobody even mentioned immigration in that housing answer, though Carney has at least mentioned it twice before.

9:15 PM - if your answer to how to appeal to young voters and solving the housing crisis doesn’t acknowledge that we let in way too many immigrants you might as well just drop out right now.

9:10 PM - the job of a Prime Ministerial is also not pretending that we’re about to give everybody a pony when we are in a potentially perilous economic reality, Gould.

9:04 PM - Twitter seems to be convinced that Gould is having a good night, which is only true if you ignore the fact that what she’s saying is idiocy on stilts.

Freeland’s whole thing about not wanting to talk down Canada is dumb and bad, also, because that suggests that any criticism is unacceptable - which is the kind of nonsense that led us to the crisis we faced before Trudeau resigned.

8:59 PM - If you wanted to keep the fiscal firepower dry, Chrystia, why did you let the GST freeze on some essentials go through?

8:57 PM - Gould’s inability to say anything that doesn’t sound like a Liz Warren AI bot is driving me crazy. I don’t get how anybody could see this as a good performance, unless you think platitudinal nonsense is good.

Also Carney mentioning that most of the growth right now is because of immigration is a fantastic sign that he gets what we need right now.

8:53 PM - If Gould is going to continue trying to paint Carney as an out of touch elitist she should have the testicular fortitude to say so or shut the fuck with this “when they say households I say families” bullshit.

Also, none of her ideas from her have a chance in hell of being implemented before the end of the decade.

8:50PM - Gould touting a housing plan written in part by Adam Vaughan, a GST cut plan that would be regressive and help the rich the most, and pie in the sky basic income nonsense is disqualifying.

8:45 PM - Am shocked it took 43 minutes to get the first “Poilievre doesn’t have a security clearance” attack.

8:40PM - Freeland hand waving away very real practical realities and pretending that if you just want it badly enough she can solve everything immediately is very on brand for a Trudeau cabinet minister, where “fuck it, it can’t be that hard is it?” was an unofficial motto.

8:36 PM - Chrystia Freeland pretending that getting to 2% by massive raising wages will make us any safer is laughable. If you want to argue for a pay rise for soldiers, do it, but pretending that you’ll be any safer if you spend 1.8% of GDP versus 2% on the same things by spending more on wages.

I’m deeply annoyed by everybody’s insistence on spending procurement dollars in Canada, as if spending more money is a good thing. Just get the equipment we need for the best price, fuck who builds it.

8:29 PM - Can someone explain to me the difference between a Council of the Federation meeting versus a First Minister’s Meeting? Also, did Chrystia Freeland just imply she wanted us to get the Brits and French to put us under their nuclear shield?

Also, if you have any questions, drop them in the comments, I’ll answer during this.

8:22 PM - Stop giving Frank Baylis the first answer for fuck’s sake.

8:21 PM - Karina Gould being a talking point machine about how we need to stand up to Trump is incredibly annoying. It’s just so unserious.

Freeland trying to make an implicit argument for herself based on her experience is jarring because of everything she’s done in this campaign to run away from her experience.

8:13 PM - Don’t think there’s any value in people claiming they’ve been right the whole time (cough Frank Baylis cough). Carney pivoting to how we need to fix the problems that have left us vulnerable is sensible, as is pivoting to attacking Poilievre.

Gould leading with how her gender makes men underestimate her … it’s just so 2019. Come on, make an argument. (Freeland was fine.)

8:08PM - Slightly troubling that this is the first time I’ve bothered to listen to Frank Baylis’ voice, but the opening statements are eminently forgettable. Karina going in with a “mini-Trump” attack on Poilievre is bad, but it’s nothing compared to Chrystia’s horrible performance. Repeating an opening statement that got mocked last night with that cringeworthy anecdote is horrifying.

Carney’s fine, still a little uncomfortable looking direct to camera but that’s fixable.

8:00PM - I just put a lasagna in the oven, the debate is on my TV, and I just downed a quad rum and coke. Let’s rock and roll. (Updates will be between every 5 and 10 minutes during the debate itself. Hopefully, at least.)

7:00PM - Ipsos and EKOS both have polls showing the Liberals winning the popular vote, while Leger has the Liberals down 3% with both major parties in the 30s. Nanos earlier today had the lead down to four nationally as well. The polls - or at least the ones which release regional information - don’t seem to particularly agree on much, with Nanos and Leger stronger in the Prairies than EKOS and weaker in Ontario for the Liberals, while Nanos is an outlier out east. It’s all kind of messy, but not that important - with so many polls out recently no poll commands that much weight in my model.

(Ipsos’ decision to not release regionals is genuinely shameful - it is a reduction of public information that makes their stated purpose of informing Canadians less useful. Darrell Bricker is a piece of shit for a lot of reasons, but that he did this is absolutely ridiculous and worthy of condemnation. I’d tweet at him to reverse it, but he’s had me blocked for coming on 6 years. If I were being an asshole I’d point out he stopped releasing his regionals just as the CPC lead started slipping. If I were an asshole.)

If I were to release the model right now, without Ipsos, the Liberals would have 143 seats to the Conservatives’ 154. But, given that the one poll I can’t count is the best one for the Liberals, that’s a bit skewed. I’m debating what measure to take - maybe taking out an IRG or Abacus number out for balance? - but it’s highly likely that the next time I release will be a tied seat count, more or less. I’d bet my bottom dollar that Fournier’s seat projection on Sunday falls back to minority parliament status, given these polls. It’s a fundamentally different situation than any of us could have expected.

The honest truth is that the Poilievre lead was always soft, for one main reason - it was about hatred of Trudeau and nothing more. Poilievre never built goodwill, it was just an immense absence of goodwill towards Trudeau. Even at his peak, Poilievre was slightly net positive in Abacus’ favourables, and the big leads were the consequence of the Liberals being lead by a boat anchor. Now they’re free, and the HMCS Skippy is sinking. Whether they can save it is the next question.

6:00 PM: Bonnie Crombie decided to make news this morning - two days from the Ontario election - by endorsing Mark Carney and trying to get him to endorse back, which he kind of did. (Carney’s people seem to be from the Chappelle Roan school of endorsements, where you don’t endorse with the words endorse but you make clear your position.) It’s in so many ways a desperate gambit - trying desperately to bathe in the reflected glory of Carney - but it’s also fucking idiotic.

Bonnie Crombie had two days this morning to make headlines about what she will do and why she deserves to be the next Premier of Ontario. And what we have here is a headline about what Bonnie Crombie said about Mark Carney, which isn’t the same thing. Nobody cares whether Bonnie supports Carney, because she cannot bring any votes to Mark who aren’t already there. But the gambit is he could help her, so she’s trying to insinuate or force him into an endorsement. But in doing so, there’s more stories about process, and not about actions.

It’s another news cycle where the story isn’t Bonnie Crombie Will Do X, at a time when the Liberals need to be making the case to voters to actually get out there and vote. The reason Del Duca lost so badly compared to where he might have gotten was because nobody knew what he wanted to do and nobody was excited. And the closing message now is about Mark Carney? Are you fucking kidding me?

This is pathetic from Crombie, an abdication of responsibility, and a disgrace. It is unacceptable that we are led by a campaign that is so unwilling to make a case for a Liberal vision of government. It is horrifying that the OLP’s closing message is that they want to drink Mark Carney’s bathwater instead of I don’t know literally anything in their platform, but here we are. It’s not good enough. It’d be disqualifying, if it wasn’t for the fact everyone else is fucking worse.