Canadian Federal Election

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Coletto retweeted an analysis I saw a while ago that I posted about here before but couldn't find it at the time.

https://x.com/DavidColetto/status/1883122101298868225?t=gLJphrpmP5E0d8e4Z0uF1g&s=19

The narrative that being "socially progressive and fiscally conservative" is some sweet spot is totally false. Only 6% of the electorate is like that. The opposite combination - being fiscally progressive and socially conservative - is actually much more common at 21% of the electorate.

Overall:
-24% are progressive both economically & socially
-17% are conservative both economically & socially
-6% are conservative economically but progressive socially
-21% are progressive economically but conservative socially

On social issues 30% are progressive and 36% are conservative.

On economic issues 45% are progressive and only 23% are conservative.

So the "conventional wisdom" - that everyone is socially progressive and only economics is the basis for difference between left & right, meaning the conservatives have to appeal to "balanced budget+ social liberalism" to be electable - is actually complete hogwash.

Canadians overwhelmingly prefer - by a margin of more than two to one - left wing economic policy. But on social cultural policy Canadians are more divided with a slight plurality actually being conservative.

Coletto then goes on to note that the CPC is very popular right now with the "socially conservative + economically progressive" side of the quadrant which feels very alienated by the "pink haired politics" of the LPC and the NDP.

This also suggests that PP will become very unpopular shortly after taking office, Starmer style, as he'll interpret his win as a mandate of austerity when it's not.

It also suggests the logical approach for Carney or Freeland is not to move right on economics, but to stay the course on being economically progressive while moving right on social-cultural issues.

That ratio is worse than I would have thought man.

We need mandatory economics classes in High School or something.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

I'm certainly not white collar, and I don't know too many NDP voters who would switch to the CPC, considering the ideology is polar opposite of what the NDP stands for.

One poster has provided us a link with PP's favorability ratings. He has a negative favourability rating of 20 points. That may cost the Conservatives the election, if true, especially if Carney proves to be effective, and manages to distance himself from Trudeau.

It has happened where I live. Lots of people have switched from NDP to Conservative in Timmins and in much of Northern Ontario. BUT, normally only very moderate conservative riding candidates will win here. Social and religious conservatism fails badly here.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

That ratio is worse than I would have thought man.

We need mandatory economics classes in High School or something.

We do need better economics education but we also need a better approach to economic liberalism. For way too many folks, laissez-faire economic policy just makes their lives worse, because said policy is usually implemented very badly. I don't really blame people for adopting that slanted view.

It's similar on the social policy side as well. I think the "campus activist" style of social liberalism has taken things way too far and people are now craving a more conservative approach to issues, even people who would be on the losing side of all that (see "Gays for Trump", for example).

I personally would call myself part of that 6% that wants fiscal conservativism with social liberalism (I suspect most of SSP does as well) but we need to acknowledge that this faction has done a terrible job at policymaking. In my opinion, the root cause of this is failure is that this faction is too deferential to special interest groups who hijack the common good in favour of their own interests. This is why I personally am so hostile to the idea of Mark Carney as PM; he's basically the special interest groups incarnate. The LPC in general is like this, to be fair, but he takes it to an even higher level. To me the value of the current populist disruption is that it has the potential to finally defang these groups by teaching establishment politicians how to ignore them and promote the actual common good instead.

I like PP's willingness to tell the groups to f*** off. I don't like his actual ideology. My ideal PM would be someone who takes that "disruptor energy" and channels it into a more traditionally LPC-style ideology.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

We do need better economics education but we also need a better approach to economic liberalism. For way too many folks, laissez-faire economic policy just makes their lives worse, because said policy is usually implemented very badly. I don't really blame people for adopting that slanted view.

It's similar on the social policy side as well. I think the "campus activist" style of social liberalism has taken things way too far and people are now craving a more conservative approach to issues, even people who would be on the losing side of all that (see "Gays for Trump", for example).

I personally would call myself part of that 6% that wants fiscal conservativism with social liberalism (I suspect most of SSP does as well) but we need to acknowledge that this faction has done a terrible job at policymaking. In my opinion, the root cause of this is failure is that this faction is too deferential to special interest groups who hijack the common good in favour of their own interests. This is why I personally am so hostile to the idea of Mark Carney as PM; he's basically the special interest groups incarnate. The LPC in general is like this, to be fair, but he takes it to an even higher level. To me the value of the current populist disruption is that it has the potential to finally defang these groups by teaching establishment politicians how to ignore them and promote the actual common good instead.

I like PP's willingness to tell the groups to f*** off. I don't like his actual ideology. My ideal PM would be someone who takes that "disruptor energy" and channels it into a more traditionally LPC-style ideology.

How do you figure?

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Build.It

Where the hell is Carney?

He announced his leadership a week ago, and hasn't made a single appearance or announcement since then. There is only 6 weeks left before the election and he has yet to reveal a single position on literally anything.

He did an appearance for TVA in Québec. That's in French, does that count?

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2025/0...arney-a-montreal-pour-se-faire-connaitre

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

He did an appearance for TVA in Québec. That's in French, does that count?

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2025/0...arney-a-montreal-pour-se-faire-connaitre

Seems more comfortable in French than the concerns last week seemed to indicate.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Seems more comfortable in French than the concerns last week seemed to indicate.

Definitely !

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Seems more comfortable in French than the concerns last week seemed to indicate.

Do you hear that? It sounds like support for PP slowly declining from its peak.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Ultimately the fate of the next Canadian election rests on who people feel is better able to handle Donald Trump. Is PP the better choice because he has better right wing credentials, or, is Freeland the better choice since she did so well during the last free trade negotiations and Trump hates her guts.

You think Freeland’s CETA negotiation strategy (tears and whining “bbbbut we’re nice…!”) would work on Trump?!?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by lio45

You think Freeland’s CETA negotiation strategy (tears and whining “bbbbut we’re nice…!”) would work on Trump?!?

Well people say it worked on NAFTA/CUSMA. There is some debate. But getting a deal without giving up much seems like a win even if we didn't get a lot out of the new deal.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by lio45

You think Freeland’s CETA negotiation strategy (tears and whining “bbbbut we’re nice…!”) would work on Trump?!?

She faced him down the last time (and his complainst about her seem to confirm it).

[theman23]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

She faced him down the last time (and his complainst about her seem to confirm it).

It's also been reported that her attitude nearly kiboshed a deal, and that it was largely saved by Telford/Butts .

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by lio45

You think Freeland’s CETA negotiation strategy (tears and whining “bbbbut we’re nice…!”) would work on Trump?!?

I think it’s a hilarious theory that Chrystia would somehow be a better negotiator with Trump than Carney because Trump hates her. It’s even goofier to suggest that her “negotiation skills” will make her the stronger candidate for the party’s electoral prospects. She is very much the second most recognizable face associated with the current government, and would be the nuclear option in terms of standpoint of rebuilding the party. She’s not stupid… she has to understand this.

I think it’s possible her leadership candidacy is meant to be a foil for the Carney campaign to use as a political punching bag to differentiate Mark Carney from the current government and bolster his cred as an outsider.

Chrystia seems to be a very good actor so far if this is the case. 🥊

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

I think it’s a hilarious theory that Chrystia would be a better negotiator with Trump and that will somehow make people vote for her. She very much the second most recognizable face associated with the current government, and would be the nuclear option in terms of standpoint of rebuilding the party. She’s not stupid… she has to understand this.

I think it’s possible her leadership candidacy is meant to be a foil for the Carney campaign to use as a political punching bag to differentiate Mark Carney from the current government and bolster his cred as an outsider.

Chrystia seems to be a very good actor so far if this is the case. 🥊

That's too complicated. She's just ambitious.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

That's too complicated. She's just ambitious.

Ambitious to be a footnote in the history books as the second unelected female Prime Minister preceding an electoral wipeout of her party?

I wouldn’t be so sure of that.

Whether it’s her intention or not, she is very much turning into a foil for Carney to contrast himself with and to help differentiate himself from the current, unpopular government. Carney has a strong case to be considered an outsider of this current government… someone who gave good advice to the current government that they just didn’t take, or were too stupid to understand.

Chrystia has no chance to differentiate herself, because other than JT himself, no one else is associated with the failures and unpopularity of the current government as much as she is.

If she truly believes she has a chance to lead the better party to a better electoral outcome than Mark Carney, then she’s not ambitious, she’s delirious!

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

I think it’s a hilarious theory that Chrystia would somehow be a better negotiator with Trump than Carney because Trump hates her. It’s even goofier to suggest that her “negotiation skills” will make her the stronger candidate for the party’s electoral prospects. She is very much the second most recognizable face associated with the current government, and would be the nuclear option in terms of standpoint of rebuilding the party. She’s not stupid… she has to understand this.

I think it’s possible her leadership candidacy is meant to be a foil for the Carney campaign to use as a political punching bag to differentiate Mark Carney from the current government and bolster his cred as an outsider.

Chrystia seems to be a very good actor so far if this is the case. 🥊

Jesus, take off the tinfoil...

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Jesus, take off the tinfoil...

lol, you seriously underestimate the power dynamics going on here.

Do we really believe Chrystia is delusional enough to believe she can deliver a better electoral outcome for her party than Carney can?


She may be ambitious and may like the prestige and title she would get for life, for being a shortly lived, lame duck PM... but I don't think she wants that personal gain more than she wants to ensure PP and the CPC's don't get a majority government.

I think Chrystia realizes that if she wins the party leadership, that she will effectively be handing Pierre Poilievre a majority. If Carney is the nominee, the Liberals at least have a chance to hold the CPC to a minority of seats.

[Build.It]

They're all in it for themselves. They'd walk across the floor if they thought they'd gain something from it.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

lol, you seriously underestimate the power dynamics going on here.

Do we really believe Chrystia is delusional enough to believe she can deliver a better electoral outcome for her party than Carney can?


She may be ambitious and may like the prestige and title she would get for life, for being a shortly lived, lame duck PM... but I don't think she wants that personal gain more than she wants to ensure PP and the CPC's don't get a majority government.

I think Chrystia realizes that if she wins the party leadership, that she will effectively be handing Pierre Poilievre a majority. If Carney is the nominee, the Liberals at least have a chance to hold the CPC to a minority of seats.

It doesn't matter if she really thinks she can win, there has to be a real contest or people will just call it a coronation.

[1overcosc]

For anyone who doesn't think election security is a serious issue:

There's a large number of X users registering as Liberals with the intention to vote for Arya with the idea it would destroy the party.

If they actually pull it off we will have, literally, a stolen PM's office.

For the sake of the country we should all be able to agree this is pretty f**ked up and we really need to secure our processes against this sort of thing.