2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election

[mileslunn]

Interesting on Boris Johnson how approval is same across board whereas for Biden, Macron, and Ardern you can clearly see difference between moderates and more right wing.  My guess is most poilievre and Lewis supporters who disapprove of Johnson think he is insufficiently conservative whereas most Brown and Charest think he is too conservative or just buffoonish.  And sort of makes sense as he is on the right, but not as right as Poilievre or Lewis.

[mileslunn]

https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1532369916812206080

He really is doing a great job of writing attack ads for Liberals.  Will bill just refers to covid vaccine mandates, it appears like he opposes all and I think even many who oppose covid vaccine mandates support them for more deadly diseases like Polio, Measles Mumps etc.

[mileslunn]

Poilievre likely dominates Western provinces.  Even BC and urban Prairies which are not exactly bastions for right wing populism probably go heavily for him as most members are very much populist and libertarian message seems to unlike social conservative one appeal to most.  Ontario despite being seen on paper as a place Charest does well, I suspect Poilievre dominates too.  Charest maybe wins a few upper middle class ridings with lots who have college degrees but that is it.

Quebec should be closer, but agree Poilievre finishes ahead.  Still with caucus mostly backing Charest it should be interesting how relations are between Poilievre and Quebec caucus.  If any as Joel Godin has hinted bolt party, it won't be a good start.  Also with Quebec election this fall, PCQ support will be interesting as their message very similar to Poilievre's so might be first hint how he will do.  Yes some CAQ voters will go Conservative, but a lot probably BQ.

Atlantic Canada is tougher to predict.  It is generally a Red Tory area and Charest did well there in 1997 so logic would suggest Charest should win here.  But looking at rallies Poilievre draws there and fact past races had more right wing candidates doing better than anticipated, I could see Poilievre winning even there.  Membership of federal Tories in this region is much different than Provincial PCs.  While some overlap, most Clark/Stanfield types still members of provincial party but have given up on federal.  While maybe a minority, still 10-20% of Atlantic Canadians want unabashed conservatism and those types much more likely to be party members than your traditional Red Tory types. 

Should Poilievre win, big tests will be upcoming Quebec and Alberta elections.  Quebec as PCQ is eerily similar so if they get in high teens or low 20s shows market for that as lets remember Legault is far more acceptable to centre-right types than Trudeau is so whatever PCQ gets is sort of baseline for federal Tories.

Alberta though is other test.  If Smith is leader and she loses to Notley or barely scrapes by, this could be a huge red flag as Alberta is normally a reliably conservative province so if cannot win or limp across finish line, that suggests bad news.  At same time Notley while similar to Trudeau in ideology, she doesn't have near the negative baggage he does.  And also I get impression a fair number of Albertans vote left provincially right federally as lean left overall, but feel federal Liberals and NDP hostile to province so vote Conservative more over regional concerns as opposed to ideology so even if Notley wins; I am still pretty sure Poilievre will dominate Alberta in next election.  Days of UCP having lock on province may be over, but I don't think days of federal Tories having lock on province are coming to an end anytime soon.

[mileslunn]

I expect the results to be more geographically homogenous than one would generally expect, with Quebec being a bit more of an outlier. There's a lot of talk about the different factions of the conservative movement and their geographic breakdown. And while there's some truth to the traditional geographical breakdown of tories that will likely lead to Poilievre overperforming west of Ontario and underperforming east of Ontario, it won't be that stark of a divide. The geographical breakdown of his membership sales suggest that apart from the obvious fact of Alberta being overrepresented in conservative politics and Quebec being underrepresented, Poilievre has a pretty broad base across Canada.

A big part of it is that the conservative movement has been largely homogenized across Canada (and across the western world to some extent). This is especially true among younger conservatives. To the extent that there are strong regional considerations (Albertans being more focused on petro-politics, for example), Poilievre has threaded that needle pretty well. Lewis will most likely outperform in rural parts of Ontario and the prairies and the religious right pockets of BC (Abbotsford, Chilliwack etc), but unlike O'Toole and MacKay, Poilievre has enough credibility with base conservatives that I think even the so-con areas will ultimately vote Poilievre.

The one I'm curious about is Baber. I think it's fair to say that he's a name nobody expected on this ballot, but he's done pretty well in appealing to a certain "South Park Republican" constituency that's not particularly deeply conservative, but is frustrated with COVID-era policies and so-called "woke" politics generally. His membership sale numbers suggest that he's particularly strong in Toronto and York Region. He probably won't win any riding outright other than York Centre, but don't be surprised to see him outperform Lewis and Aitchison, even run close to Charest in parts of suburban Toronto and the 905. His Jewish identity in particular might help him greatly in York Region and ridings like Eglinton-Lawrence - in addition to his native York Centre, of course.

Outside of Quebec and maybe some pockets out east, I think Charest's strength will be limited to downtown and "Brahmin" areas. Places like Uni-Rosedale, Don Valley West, Parkdale-High Park etc will likely favour him, but even in the suburbs, I don't see him doing all that well.

I think that is largely true.  Many are looking a bigger electorate and who will have most appeal in regions and forget party membership is quite different from general electorate.  At same time I do expect Poilievre to have blowouts in most Western ridings save a few urban ones.  Ontario a large win but not quite as lopsided as West.  Quebec and Atlantic Canada I think takes too, but in those two Charest probably puts up a strong second and wins some ridings.

[mileslunn]

I expect the results to be more geographically homogenous than one would generally expect, with Quebec being a bit more of an outlier. There's a lot of talk about the different factions of the conservative movement and their geographic breakdown. And while there's some truth to the traditional geographical breakdown of tories that will likely lead to Poilievre overperforming west of Ontario and underperforming east of Ontario, it won't be that stark of a divide. The geographical breakdown of his membership sales suggest that apart from the obvious fact of Alberta being overrepresented in conservative politics and Quebec being underrepresented, Poilievre has a pretty broad base across Canada.

A big part of it is that the conservative movement has been largely homogenized across Canada (and across the western world to some extent). This is especially true among younger conservatives. To the extent that there are strong regional considerations (Albertans being more focused on petro-politics, for example), Poilievre has threaded that needle pretty well. Lewis will most likely outperform in rural parts of Ontario and the prairies and the religious right pockets of BC (Abbotsford, Chilliwack etc), but unlike O'Toole and MacKay, Poilievre has enough credibility with base conservatives that I think even the so-con areas will ultimately vote Poilievre.

The one I'm curious about is Baber. I think it's fair to say that he's a name nobody expected on this ballot, but he's done pretty well in appealing to a certain "South Park Republican" constituency that's not particularly deeply conservative, but is frustrated with COVID-era policies and so-called "woke" politics generally. His membership sale numbers suggest that he's particularly strong in Toronto and York Region. He probably won't win any riding outright other than York Centre, but don't be surprised to see him outperform Lewis and Aitchison, even run close to Charest in parts of suburban Toronto and the 905. His Jewish identity in particular might help him greatly in York Region and ridings like Eglinton-Lawrence - in addition to his native York Centre, of course.

Outside of Quebec and maybe some pockets out east, I think Charest's strength will be limited to downtown and "Brahmin" areas. Places like Uni-Rosedale, Don Valley West, Parkdale-High Park etc will likely favour him, but even in the suburbs, I don't see him doing all that well.

I think that is largely true.  Many are looking a bigger electorate and who will have most appeal in regions and forget party membership is quite different from general electorate.  At same time I do expect Poilievre to have blowouts in most Western ridings save a few urban ones.  Ontario a large win but not quite as lopsided as West.  Quebec and Atlantic Canada I think takes too, but in those two Charest probably puts up a strong second and wins some ridings.

Another likely consequence of this leadership election will be a diminished role of social conservatives, even if such an effect is temporary. Even though Poilievre has some appeal to the so-con crowd, most of his new sign-ups are more libertarian-oriented, much like himself. And apart from the vaccine issue and occasional anti-"woke" platitudes, Poilievre has really been more focused on the fiscal aspects of conservatism. The token so-con of this race, Leslyn Lewis, didn't even focus on that stuff quite as much this time around, she mainly tried clumsily to out-Poilievre Poilievre.

Lewis spent a lot more time on conspiracy theories too and Poilievre tried to appeal to such people, but avoided directly pushing them like Lewis did.  Also I think there is a certain element that just want an unapologetic conservative which he is and someone willing to stand up to establishment and its less policy and more someone who will push back against establishment who they dislike.

[mileslunn]

I don't think a split is likely.  Most splits on right that have any traction have usually been parties that have been in power for a while like federally in 1993 or Alberta in 2012 to 2017.  Tends to happen when governing party becomes very unpopular and significant chunk on right want government defeated but aren't comfortable voting for parties on left.

Also you cannot simply add two parties together.  UKIP in 2015 surge didn't cost Tories and in fact combined right wing vote was 50% which Tories have never gotten in UK.  Likewise in BC 2013, 16 of 18 ridings BC Tories got over 10% in voted BC Liberals.  In most recent election, PPC got over 10% in 23 ridings and 20 of those voted Conservative.  One (Dartmouth-Cole Harbour) had no Tory candidate as dropped at last minute over sexual assault accusations.  Other two were Timmins-James Bay and Windsor-Tecumseh which Doug Ford won so maybe trending that way anyways.  Ontario Party + New Blue Party got almost same percentage as PPC and similar distribution yet Ford won most of the CPC + PPC seats. 

I also think if Charest chosen, most further right would stick with party for simple desire to oust Trudeau and most who did go PPC would mostly be in safe ridings they won by big margins.  So I think talk of split overblown.  Now yes split may happen if party forms government and wins a few terms for reason explained above.

[mileslunn]

She was a provincial Liberal minister, so maybe like Charest she is considered a LIBERAL.

I don't know if the MPs who worked and had connections with the provincial Liberals took the "Liberal" attacks personally. Maybe they won't feel very welcomed.

I think it more shows ignorance of those making them.  BC and Quebec Liberals (or at least Quebec Liberals prior to 2018 loss, now more centre-left unlike earlier) have always been coalitions with both federal Liberals and federal Tories and it was more common enemy that united party rather than common ideology.

[mileslunn]

When will announcement come?

[mileslunn]

Said results in 10-15 minutes and most likely Poilievre wins on first ballot, if not huge surprise.

[mileslunn]

Total votes and points:


Aitchison 4,947 votes (1.18%), 356.66 points (1.06%)
Baber 22,380 (5.36%), 1,696.76 (5.03%)
Charest 48,651 (11.65%), 5,421.62 (16.07%)
Lewis 46,374 (11.10%), 3,269.54 (9.69%)
Poilievre 295,283 (70.07%), 22,993.42 (68.15%)

To me anyway, Charest underperformed as badly as Charlie Angus did.

I think Charest performed as expected.  Party is a lot more conservative than one he led in 1997 and likewise its centre of power is in Prairies not Quebec so a Quebec Red Tory was always going to have a tough time winning.  Peter MacKay was probably only one from old PCs who maybe could pull off a win and fact he couldn't I think was sign anyone with PC roots at least if known (O'Toole comes from former PCs but most didn't know it at time) cannot win today's Conservative leadership.

Likewise anyone from Quebec needs to be a libertarian like such as Bernier or Duhaime.  A Mulroney or Legault type cannot win in present day party

[mileslunn]

Total votes and points:


Aitchison 4,947 votes (1.18%), 356.66 points (1.06%)
Baber 22,380 (5.36%), 1,696.76 (5.03%)
Charest 48,651 (11.65%), 5,421.62 (16.07%)
Lewis 46,374 (11.10%), 3,269.54 (9.69%)
Poilievre 295,283 (70.07%), 22,993.42 (68.15%)

To me anyway, Charest underperformed as badly as Charlie Angus did.

I think Charest performed as expected.  Party is a lot more conservative than one he led in 1997 and likewise its centre of power is in Prairies not Quebec so a Quebec Red Tory was always going to have a tough time winning.  Peter MacKay was probably only one from old PCs who maybe could pull off a win and fact he couldn't I think was sign anyone with PC roots at least if known (O'Toole comes from former PCs but most didn't know it at time) cannot win today's Conservative leadership.

Likewise anyone from Quebec needs to be a libertarian like such as Bernier or Duhaime.  A Mulroney or Legault type cannot win in present day party

For me, that would be easy to say in hindsight. I had thought the progressive conservatives were still about 1/3 of the party.

They probably were at beginning as lets not forget all the new members Poilievre signed up.  I think the pandemic created a situation where there was a strong untapped anger out there and many of those in past weren't involved in politics, but Poilievre was able to tap into their frustration.  Unfortunately when people are mad, being articulate with detailed policies doesn't excite people same way as rhetoric and bashing whomever people think is cause of problems.

[mileslunn]

So how authentic is PP's populism to Canadians? His anti elite rhetoric comes off a bit hypocritical for a career politician.

That is a good question.  I think Poilievre is a real wild card.  He is more a populist in tea party mold or a populist version of Reagan/Thatcher or here in Canada Mike Harris/Ralph Klein.  Otherwise very much your small government type.  Generally Canadians have been weary of small government conservatism but possible with how bad a job government doing at so many things, this message will work.  He is a high risk high reward type.  In that he could do something many thought was not possible and permanently re-align politics like Reagan and Thatcher did.  On other hand possible he flops badly and creates a situation where Conservatives need to get used to losing as gap between their supporters and rest too hard to bridge.  We won't know until next election.

[mileslunn]

First consequence of the CPC having lost touch with reality, Quebec MP Alain Rayes leaves the party, saying he believes in law and order, unlike Poilievre.

I think we are seeing growing polarization and a lot of traditional Liberals and old PCs no longer feel at home in the more hyper partisan bare knuckles politics.  Historically politics was about serving country and ideology took back seat.  Today its more about pushing a certain ideology and generally strong dislike of opponents.

It will be interesting to see how next election plays out but my guess is no matter the result, country will be even more divided.  If Trudeau wins again, I could see right really losing it and going off deep end and even questioning legitimacy.  If Poilievre wins, left will be scared and angry, but probably will see type of mobilization and unity you haven't seen in years.

[mileslunn]

First consequence of the CPC having lost touch with reality, Quebec MP Alain Rayes leaves the party, saying he believes in law and order, unlike Poilievre.

So the Canadian equivalent of Change UK and the Lincoln Project Appears . Well and don’t forget back in 2004 when Joe Clark endorsed the Libs :

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1790840235

Change UK was a flop but also Corbyn was pretty far left so I think that made it easier for your Wets to fall in line whatever misgivings had of Boris.  Lincoln Project may have been small in numbers but election was close enough that the Never Trump Republicans were what cost Trump his second term.  Had they stayed with GOP or voted for third party, Trump would have won a second term.  I am guessing Lincoln Project only around 2% of Americans, but that was enough to tip the scales.

[mileslunn]

First consequence of the CPC having lost touch with reality, Quebec MP Alain Rayes leaves the party, saying he believes in law and order, unlike Poilievre.

So the Canadian equivalent of Change UK and the Lincoln Project Appears . Well and don’t forget back in 2004 when Joe Clark endorsed the Libs :

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1790840235

Change UK was a flop but also Corbyn was pretty far left so I think that made it easier for your Wets to fall in line whatever misgivings had of Boris.  Lincoln Project may have been small in numbers but election was close enough that the Never Trump Republicans were what cost Trump his second term.  Had they stayed with GOP or voted for third party, Trump would have won a second term.  I am guessing Lincoln Project only around 2% of Americans, but that was enough to tip the scales.

1. Fair

2. Sure but that would probably mean a Result with liberals getting around 10 more seats than the Tories in which case Pierre probably stays and there is another election in a year . Keep in mind they did  fail in 2016 though

Most Lincoln Project types were Romney 12 - Johnson 16 - Biden 20 voters.  Trump got a larger share of the popular vote in 2020 (46.8%) than 2016 (46%) but lost as third party support largely swung behind Biden who gained even more.

[mileslunn]

What's also interesting is the drop in support for social conservative candidates. Social conservative voters were key in both 2017 and 2022, and their preferences helped elect both Scheer and O'Toole.

2017: 16% (Lemieux+Trost)
2020: 25% (Lewis)
2022: 10% (Lewis)

I suppose some of that is due to the party signing up new memberships of more disenfranchised types who are less likely to be socially conservative. Social conservatives may have also been turned off from participating in the party because they didn't get anything in return from supporting O'Toole and Scheer.

A third factor is that Poilievre has unique credibility with most factions within the party, including so-cons, even though he gave so-cons virtually nothing in the leadership campaign. Apart from the most hardcore single-issue religious right voters, so-cons tend to fall in line if they trust a leader, even one who won't give them much.

I think his unity comes from two reasons.

1.  Social Conservatives more than anything want an unabashed conservative who won't apologize for being one and Poilievre is that even if his focus is more economic.

2.  Moderates like Poilievre believe government has gotten too big and needs to be reduced.  Its more a matter of degree so yes he could lose them if he goes too far once in power, but while true moderates tend to usually shun a small government message, if government is seen as growing too much different story.  See Mike Harris in 1995 or Margaret Thatcher in UK.  Both brought along moderates as belief was both cases had swung too far to left and needed change.

[mileslunn]

To me, Laurentian Elite just sounds like a repackaged "Western Alienation".

Those are related things, correct. As someone with strong connections to western Canada though, I can relate to the argument behind it, even if a lot of it is irrational populism.

Its not just West vs. East it is more urban vs. rural too as even rural areas in Central Canada tend to have a strong negative view of largest metro areas.  That is why in Ontario, Conservatives dominate rural areas.  In Quebec, you have BQ for anti-Montreal attitude so harder there and at least they are a homegrown culturally sensitive party.  In Western Canada, Vancouver is very much your Laurentian Elite type city.  In many ways its like US with areas near large bodies of water being more progressive while inland areas or as they call in US fly over country being more right wing populist.  Calgary I also don't think is that populists.  Conservatives dominate it more because they are most pro energy sector party which plays a big role in economy but if progressives were more pro energy, I think it would be a lot more competitive than it is.  Reason Notley is tied or ahead there in polls is she unlike most progressives is pro energy sector.

[mileslunn]

Skippy keeps talking about the "gatekeepers" as the new bogeyman we need to be worried about. Is this the Canadian version of draining the swamp?

I think Poilievre is more like your Thatcher or Reagan type or even your Mike Harris type.  He is total opposite of Boris Johnson who despite being labeled a right wing populist, he actually expanded the size of the state.  Poilievre much more like Liz Truss on policy, just more in your face and over top rhetoric. 

Danger is like politicians mentioned above he may over do it.  Ford and Harper both were small government types but both willing to buck that when circumstances warranted like Harper increasing spending during Great Recession and Ford with Covid restrictions.  Poilievre doesn't strike me as type who would be willing to break his small government ideology even if circumstances warranted it.

He seems more type lower taxes is always good, less spending always good, less regulation always good as opposed to like Mulroney or Harper the above is generally good but their exceptions to the rules.

[mileslunn]

My guess is PCQ support will be very telling about Poilievre's potential in Quebec as Eric Duhaime is very much your small government libertarian like Poilievre.  Other provincial elections less so as Atlantic PCs still have strong Red Tory current that is absent in federal party.  Ontario doesn't say much as Ford while hated by establishment showed a high degree of pragmatism Poilievre seems to lack. 

Manitoba election also not telling much as Manitoba PCs are more your run of mill type and Heather Stephenson I have heard is very unlikeable across the board not just amongst detractors like with Poilievre, but even those who normally vote PC.

Alberta is mixed.  If smith wins, then she will be easy foil for federal Liberals to compare Poilievre too.  If Notley wins, that is gone, but also says even in Alberta limit on how far you can go.  And even if Smith wins, it won't be the kind of lopsided version you are used to in Alberta.  If Travis Toews pulls off surprise, meaningless as he is more your establishment Blue Tory.

BC doesn't say a lot either as while BC Conservatives sort of like Poilievre, I suspect many Poilievre supporters will go BC Liberal simply because they have better shot at beating NDP than BC Conservatives do.  If Horgan had stayed leader he would be a near shoo in as very likeable and relatable.  Eby is not but still favourite to win but less certain.

[mileslunn]

2.  Moderates like Poilievre believe government has gotten too big and needs to be reduced.  Its more a matter of degree so yes he could lose them if he goes too far once in power, but while true moderates tend to usually shun a small government message, if government is seen as growing too much different story.  See Mike Harris in 1995 or Margaret Thatcher in UK.  Both brought along moderates as belief was both cases had swung too far to left and needed change.

Somehow, referring to Poilievre as a "moderate" relative to Harris or Thatcher seems...off.  (Though yes, maybe he's euphemistically "moderate" relative to the party's rank and file today)

Poilievre is no moderate, I said reason some like him, not that he is one.  People like Kenneth Clarke in UK had no trouble serving in Thatcher government and ones like Elizabeth Whitmer in Mike Harris' case so it is possible although far from certain you see similar thing with Poilievre even though he is no moderate just as Harris and Thatcher were not either.

[mileslunn]

But on the whole, it seems to me that the Laurentian-legacy-media wishful-thinking party line is that Pierre Poilievre is to the Conservatives what Barry Goldwater was to the Republicans--really adored by a certain hardcore-idealist base, yet nasty-scary to everyone else.  (Come to think of it, Poilievre even *looks* a bit like a dark-haired Barry Goldwater.)

Liberal partisans may be cavalier about their chances against Poilievre, but it's clear that the government is taking him as a serious threat. It's no coincidence that they announced new affordability measures right after Poilievre was elected leader.

Most seasoned campaign veterans do take his threat seriously.  Yes he may be Canada's version of Barry Goldwater, but could also be our version of Reagan although probably won't win landslides like Reagan did and also doesn't quite have the optimistic hopeful tone Reagan did.  I think Mike Harris and Tim Hudak best examples as both ran on small government platform and former succeeded latter failed.  In normal times someone like Poilievre would be unelectable, but with Trudeau being more to left than previous Liberal leaders possible seeing a backlash that will work in his favour, but far too early to say.

[mileslunn]

First polls out and suggest a minor bump for Poilievre but nothing significant.  All three show Tories ahead but well short of a majority while NDP surging in Nanos, doing well in Leger, but not so in Abacus.  If an election were held today likely either a smaller Liberal minority or a Tory plurality but a lot can happen.

It seems Trudeau is increasingly becoming unpopular, but Poilievre's numbers are middling.  He isn't attracting the excitement he is amongst base, but he is not as repulsive to general public as some establishment might think.  Looking at regions, strong in Prairies as expected, but tied or slightly ahead in Ontario.  Struggling in Quebec while Atlantic Canada and BC same as 2021. 

Despite some talk of millennial breakthrough, polls show he is not doing well amongst millennials and support skews more older although is doing well amongst Gen X, but not millennials and Gen Z.  PPC surprisingly is still at 3-4% so that may be a hidden benefit as I suspect most goes over to Poilievre, but also assumes he holds the moderates O'Toole picked up and way too early to tell if he does or doesn't.

[mileslunn]

  He isn't attracting the excitement he is amongst base, but he is not as repulsive to general public as some establishment might think.

Though judging from the relative stasis, he might still be more unlikeable than the convention-watching pundits who were impressed by his speech would have one believe.  And when it's *Jagmeet* getting the bump for no clear reason, well, what does that say.  (Maybe Poilievre benefit-of-the-doubters decided, "eff this" re both him and Justin)

Singh bump is tough to know as Nanos looks great for NDP, Leger looks good too, but Abacus not so much so seems polls all over map for them.  I think since NDP vote skews younger and young voters harder to reach, that could be reason.  Certainly idea Poilievre is winning amongst millennials does not seem to be case in polls and I never bought that.  I think he is doing well amongst male millennials without post secondary degree, but poorly amongst female millennials and male millennials with post secondary degree and latter two far larger than former.