2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election

[DC Al Fine]

What I can't for the life of me figure out is why Charest is going through this whole "will-he-or-won't-he" thing again

Last leadership race he mulled running before eventually declining  and the media narrative at the time was that he thought he didn't have a path to victory, was shocked at how much the party base had shifted etc etc.

That was in 2020. What's changed in two years that would give him that path to victory?

[Poirot]

Maybe it's more people asking him to run and takes his time to give an answer because it could be his last chance to have a path to become Prime Minister. Poilievre probably has a big lead at the start. Charest's appeal could be he offers a better chance to get votes from moderates, centrists, disenchanted Liberals, more Quebec votes and he is a very good campaigner. But the conservative membership is probably not looking for that. It would be hard for him to win. He would need new members and it's probably easier to sell membership to people with a cause or ideology.

It seems there are at least 7 Quebec MPs willing to support Charest. So they are looking for someone other than Poilievre (maybe they will endorse him if he is the sure winner). Two Harper appointed Senators and organizers are supporting Poilievre.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Maybe it's more people asking him to run and takes his time to give an answer because it could be his last chance to have a path to become Prime Minister. Poilievre probably has a big lead at the start. Charest's appeal could be he offers a better chance to get votes from moderates, centrists, disenchanted Liberals, more Quebec votes and he is a very good campaigner. But the conservative membership is probably not looking for that. It would be hard for him to win. He would need new members and it's probably easier to sell membership to people with a cause or ideology.

It seems there are at least 7 Quebec MPs willing to support Charest. So they are looking for someone other than Poilievre (maybe they will endorse him if he is the sure winner). Two Harper appointed Senators and organizers are supporting Poilievre.

That's the question though, who are these "disenchanted Liberals"? And why do we assume Charest would win them over?

I think the assumption is that this would be blue liberals, bay street boys, etc. This is not a huge portion of the Canadian population by any stretch, and the influence of those interests isn't what it used to be. The most effective model for a Conservative victory in the GTA in today's context is shown by Doug Ford - someone whose appeal is nothing like Charest's. The hypothesis that there is a mass of blue Liberals who like Liberal values but want less spending was tested in 2021, and it didn't work out too well for O'Toole.

In my experience, disenchantment among the Liberal base is coming from young people and people frustrated about covid measures - the venn diagram between those two has a lot of overlap. Between Jean Charest and Pierre Poilievre, the latter is an infinitely better choice to appeal to this group. Anyone in English Canada who is under 40 and not obsessed with politics has no idea who Jean Charest is, and Quebecers under 40 don't exactly tend to have the fondest memories of the guy.

Edit: To be clear, I don't think Poilievre is a silver bullet who would energize disenchanted voters into propelling the Tories back to power. Poilievre is an ideologue, and dogmatic conservatism isn't super popular in Canada these days. But the hypothesis that Jean Charest would chip off Liberal voters because he's fiscally conservative and culturally liberal assumes that there are lots of current Liberal voters looking for that, and I don't think that's the case. If I'm right, and frustration among the Liberal base is coming from young people who are losing faith in the political establishment, Charest seems like the exact opposite of what they would want.

[mileslunn]

Maybe it's more people asking him to run and takes his time to give an answer because it could be his last chance to have a path to become Prime Minister. Poilievre probably has a big lead at the start. Charest's appeal could be he offers a better chance to get votes from moderates, centrists, disenchanted Liberals, more Quebec votes and he is a very good campaigner. But the conservative membership is probably not looking for that. It would be hard for him to win. He would need new members and it's probably easier to sell membership to people with a cause or ideology.

It seems there are at least 7 Quebec MPs willing to support Charest. So they are looking for someone other than Poilievre (maybe they will endorse him if he is the sure winner). Two Harper appointed Senators and organizers are supporting Poilievre.

That's the question though, who are these "disenchanted Liberals"? And why do we assume Charest would win them over?

I think the assumption is that this would be blue liberals, bay street boys, etc. This is not a huge portion of the Canadian population by any stretch, and the influence of those interests isn't what it used to be. The most effective model for a Conservative victory in the GTA in today's context is shown by Doug Ford - someone whose appeal is nothing like Charest's. The hypothesis that there is a mass of blue Liberals who like Liberal values but want less spending was tested in 2021, and it didn't work out too well for O'Toole.

In my experience, disenchantment among the Liberal base is coming from young people and people frustrated about covid measures - the venn diagram between those two has a lot of overlap. Between Jean Charest and Pierre Poilievre, the latter is an infinitely better choice to appeal to this group. Anyone in English Canada who is under 40 and not obsessed with politics has no idea who Jean Charest is, and Quebecers under 40 don't exactly tend to have the fondest memories of the guy.

Edit: To be clear, I don't think Poilievre is a silver bullet who would energize disenchanted voters into propelling the Tories back to power. Poilievre is an ideologue, and dogmatic conservatism isn't super popular in Canada these days. But the hypothesis that Jean Charest would chip off Liberal voters because he's fiscally conservative and culturally liberal assumes that there are lots of current Liberal voters looking for that, and I don't think that's the case. If I'm right, and frustration among the Liberal base is coming from young people who are losing faith in the political establishment, Charest seems like the exact opposite of what they would want.

That is largely true, but there still is some potential here.  Your white upper middle class suburbs like Burlington, Kanata-Carleton, West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country, Winnipeg South, Oakville, and Eglinton-Lawrence all examples of those.  And O'Toole did much better in most of those than Scheer although fell a bit short.  By contrast Ford underperformed in those.  But it won't as you mention get party to power on its own.  Still if there is enough disenchantment with Liberals it could be what puts them over top.  It was this group that put Biden in power as you look at areas where Trump underperformed Romney the most and those were upper middle class suburbs with lots of college educated whites like Chester County, PA; Fairfield County, CT; Morris County, NJ etc, and a precinct level loads of these such as Darien, CT; Westlake, Ohio; Powell, Ohio. 

On other hand Boris Johnson won places like Chelsea & Fulham; Cities of London & Westminster; Cheadle, much of London Commuter belt without exactly appealing to them and did so due to opposition of Corbyn.

BC Liberals were in many ways this type of party and until recently they were very successful of centre-right parties thus reason for appeal, but in last decade really lost a lot of ground so not sure it gives same success as in past.  Now yes possible if Deficit hits crisis levels like mid 90s that changes.  Likewise if Trudeau starts raising taxes on top 10%, not just top 1% or there is a major exodus of latter then possible.  But right now not as such stage.  I think former happens soon, latter on taxes I don't see happening.

My preference is fiscally conservative but socially liberal and still see some potential, but I don't think it excites or inspires people.  I think its more type of policy that works well when high level of fatigue with Liberals.  On covid restrictions, I totally agree and big potential amongst younger voters.  PCQ in Quebec being at over 20% amongst millennials is evidence of that.  Likewise be interested to see if this saves UCP in Alberta as while I expect Notley to win next year, if UCP does come back, I think UCP promise to drop all restrictions permanently but fear NDP will bring them back will be big reason, not bringing back Flat tax or a balanced budget (former I think hurts party actually).  By same token if next election is not until 2024 or 2025, I suspect COVID-19 is endemic and more importantly I don't think any party will be calling for public health restrictions by then.  Real difference asides from your Randy Hillier types who always opposed any restrictions is more a matter of just how fast and timing so right now because of where we are in pandemic, its showing up heavily, but just as most united asides fringe for restrictions in March 2020, I suspect by 2024, wanting to go back into lockdown or other restrictions will be political suicide.

[Central Lake]

I would like leadership candidates to talk about their general election strategy and plans to add to the Conservative vote pool. Which is at 33%-34% in the last two elections.

However, I really prefer when leadership candidates explain this in terms of demography and geography and really dislike it when they make their case by invoking a political spectrum or a time spectrum.

For example if Jean Charest said CPC currently has 10 seats in Quebec and I can get 20 seats in Quebec by appealing to so and so, I am willing to hear me about. But if Jean Charest said I will win additional seats because I am moderate, or I will appeal to moderates, I am ignoring him.

Another example is John Tory saying I won the Toronto mayoral race so I can win additional seats in the GTA. Or if Doug Ford said I won seats in the GTA provincially so I can win GTA seats federally. These are just hypotheticals on my part but I hope I am communicating my point.

Whenever people say moderates, modernize, or the center, I am very unimpressed. I also find it irritating.

[DC Al Fine]

Maybe it's more people asking him to run and takes his time to give an answer because it could be his last chance to have a path to become Prime Minister. Poilievre probably has a big lead at the start. Charest's appeal could be he offers a better chance to get votes from moderates, centrists, disenchanted Liberals, more Quebec votes and he is a very good campaigner. But the conservative membership is probably not looking for that. It would be hard for him to win. He would need new members and it's probably easier to sell membership to people with a cause or ideology.

It seems there are at least 7 Quebec MPs willing to support Charest. So they are looking for someone other than Poilievre (maybe they will endorse him if he is the sure winner). Two Harper appointed Senators and organizers are supporting Poilievre.

Quebec politics bewilders me.

Most of the Quebec Tory caucus are CAQuists. I get why they wouldn't want Poillievre, but Charest as a PLQ Premier seems like a bad fit as well. Is it as simple as backing a fellow Quebecer or am I missing something else?

[mileslunn]

Maybe it's more people asking him to run and takes his time to give an answer because it could be his last chance to have a path to become Prime Minister. Poilievre probably has a big lead at the start. Charest's appeal could be he offers a better chance to get votes from moderates, centrists, disenchanted Liberals, more Quebec votes and he is a very good campaigner. But the conservative membership is probably not looking for that. It would be hard for him to win. He would need new members and it's probably easier to sell membership to people with a cause or ideology.

It seems there are at least 7 Quebec MPs willing to support Charest. So they are looking for someone other than Poilievre (maybe they will endorse him if he is the sure winner). Two Harper appointed Senators and organizers are supporting Poilievre.

Quebec politics bewilders me.

Most of the Quebec Tory caucus are CAQuists. I get why they wouldn't want Poillievre, but Charest as a PLQ Premier seems like a bad fit as well. Is it as simple as backing a fellow Quebecer or am I missing something else?

For Quebec, someone like Gerald Detell, Alain Rayes or others from Quebec caucus probably best there.  Reality is Liberals tend to be as Harper described anywheres so there isn't same regional differences thus easy to unite.

Tories vary quite a bit by region:

Mostly Red Tories in Atlantic Canada who are traditionalist but okay with government intervention.

Rural nationalists but not separatists in Quebec who are culturally conservative but economically centrist and socially left.

Ontario a mix of rural conservatives and suburban fiscal conservatives

Prairies mostly right wing populists and libertarians mixed in with some more moderates in urban areas.

BC a mix of green pro business types in Lower Mainland while right wing populist pro resource types in Interior.

Its why Conservatives have much easier time winning provincially than federally.  Type of conservatism popular in Atlantic Canada & Quebec angers base in West while type popular in Prairies is toxic in coastal BC, suburban Ontario, and areas of east of Ottawa River.  Someone like King or Houston would never be acceptable to Western base but yet super popular in respective provinces.

Legault would anger Prairie supporters on his environmental and pandemic stances while hurt part in Lower Mainland and 905 belt due to Bill 21 which unpopular amongst immigrants yet super popular.

Ford too much of populist for Atlantic Canada and lack of French not electable in Quebec while willing to please people and compromise on principles wouldn't go over well in Prairies.  Despite being on shakier ground than others mentioned, he still has a better than even chance of being re-elected.

Brian Pallister was sort of a hybrid between an Ontario moderate and more right wing type you find in Saskatchewan and Alberta (Don't know much about Stefanson)

Moe and Kenney appeal to heavily to base which at least in Moe's case works well (less so Kenney as Alberta is rapidly changing).  But both would be toxic in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.  Would do well in rural Ontario but fall flat in suburbs while dominate BC interior but fall flat in areas west of Langley where majority live.

Thus for Tories to win, they either need all factions to hate Liberals so much that desire to oust them unites them or need an incredibly skilled and talented politician like Harper who can keep them together and such are rare.  Provincially you have far fewer factions so you can tailor your style of conservatism to province but nationally much harder to do.

Liberals don't have this issue as they are usually university educated, well travelled and they are as Harper called anywheres.  Conservatives by contrast are overwhelmingly somewheres. 

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Maybe it's more people asking him to run and takes his time to give an answer because it could be his last chance to have a path to become Prime Minister. Poilievre probably has a big lead at the start. Charest's appeal could be he offers a better chance to get votes from moderates, centrists, disenchanted Liberals, more Quebec votes and he is a very good campaigner. But the conservative membership is probably not looking for that. It would be hard for him to win. He would need new members and it's probably easier to sell membership to people with a cause or ideology.

It seems there are at least 7 Quebec MPs willing to support Charest. So they are looking for someone other than Poilievre (maybe they will endorse him if he is the sure winner). Two Harper appointed Senators and organizers are supporting Poilievre.

That's the question though, who are these "disenchanted Liberals"? And why do we assume Charest would win them over?

I think the assumption is that this would be blue liberals, bay street boys, etc. This is not a huge portion of the Canadian population by any stretch, and the influence of those interests isn't what it used to be. The most effective model for a Conservative victory in the GTA in today's context is shown by Doug Ford - someone whose appeal is nothing like Charest's. The hypothesis that there is a mass of blue Liberals who like Liberal values but want less spending was tested in 2021, and it didn't work out too well for O'Toole.

In my experience, disenchantment among the Liberal base is coming from young people and people frustrated about covid measures - the venn diagram between those two has a lot of overlap. Between Jean Charest and Pierre Poilievre, the latter is an infinitely better choice to appeal to this group. Anyone in English Canada who is under 40 and not obsessed with politics has no idea who Jean Charest is, and Quebecers under 40 don't exactly tend to have the fondest memories of the guy.

Edit: To be clear, I don't think Poilievre is a silver bullet who would energize disenchanted voters into propelling the Tories back to power. Poilievre is an ideologue, and dogmatic conservatism isn't super popular in Canada these days. But the hypothesis that Jean Charest would chip off Liberal voters because he's fiscally conservative and culturally liberal assumes that there are lots of current Liberal voters looking for that, and I don't think that's the case. If I'm right, and frustration among the Liberal base is coming from young people who are losing faith in the political establishment, Charest seems like the exact opposite of what they would want.

That is largely true, but there still is some potential here.  Your white upper middle class suburbs like Burlington, Kanata-Carleton, West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country, Winnipeg South, Oakville, and Eglinton-Lawrence all examples of those.  And O'Toole did much better in most of those than Scheer although fell a bit short.  By contrast Ford underperformed in those.  But it won't as you mention get party to power on its own.  Still if there is enough disenchantment with Liberals it could be what puts them over top.  It was this group that put Biden in power as you look at areas where Trump underperformed Romney the most and those were upper middle class suburbs with lots of college educated whites like Chester County, PA; Fairfield County, CT; Morris County, NJ etc, and a precinct level loads of these such as Darien, CT; Westlake, Ohio; Powell, Ohio. 

On other hand Boris Johnson won places like Chelsea & Fulham; Cities of London & Westminster; Cheadle, much of London Commuter belt without exactly appealing to them and did so due to opposition of Corbyn.

BC Liberals were in many ways this type of party and until recently they were very successful of centre-right parties thus reason for appeal, but in last decade really lost a lot of ground so not sure it gives same success as in past.  Now yes possible if Deficit hits crisis levels like mid 90s that changes.  Likewise if Trudeau starts raising taxes on top 10%, not just top 1% or there is a major exodus of latter then possible.  But right now not as such stage.  I think former happens soon, latter on taxes I don't see happening.

My preference is fiscally conservative but socially liberal and still see some potential, but I don't think it excites or inspires people.  I think its more type of policy that works well when high level of fatigue with Liberals.  On covid restrictions, I totally agree and big potential amongst younger voters.  PCQ in Quebec being at over 20% amongst millennials is evidence of that.  Likewise be interested to see if this saves UCP in Alberta as while I expect Notley to win next year, if UCP does come back, I think UCP promise to drop all restrictions permanently but fear NDP will bring them back will be big reason, not bringing back Flat tax or a balanced budget (former I think hurts party actually).  By same token if next election is not until 2024 or 2025, I suspect COVID-19 is endemic and more importantly I don't think any party will be calling for public health restrictions by then.  Real difference asides from your Randy Hillier types who always opposed any restrictions is more a matter of just how fast and timing so right now because of where we are in pandemic, its showing up heavily, but just as most united asides fringe for restrictions in March 2020, I suspect by 2024, wanting to go back into lockdown or other restrictions will be political suicide.

You mentioned places like Burlington, Eglinton-Lawrence, etc showing a rightward trend in 2021. This is true - but these places generally had a pretty big leftward swing in 2019, probably because an pro-lifer from Saskatchewan is a uniquely bad fit. But compared to Harper, O'Toole didn't do significantly better with these voters, and depending on which ridings you look at, considerably worse. And remember that in 2015, Trudeau was only promising $10B deficits and pretty limited expansions to social programs, and Harper was running on things like 'barbaric cultural practices hotline'.

I think the cohort of voters who vote Liberal but are concerned about big deficits or other fiscal conservative priorities are marginal at this point. If there is a fiscal conservative priority that has been permeating the mainstream, it's inflation, and Poilievre is the loudest anti-inflation crusader there is. Do I think PP has any credibility on it? Nope, not in the slightest, but most voters don't care or understand the specifics of economic policy, they want someone who speaks to their concerns. And inflation is an issue that not only riles up more well-off people who are seeing their assets depreciate, but also low-income people who are struggling with basic necessities. Charest may be a good fit for the former, he absolutely is not for the latter.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Maybe it's more people asking him to run and takes his time to give an answer because it could be his last chance to have a path to become Prime Minister. Poilievre probably has a big lead at the start. Charest's appeal could be he offers a better chance to get votes from moderates, centrists, disenchanted Liberals, more Quebec votes and he is a very good campaigner. But the conservative membership is probably not looking for that. It would be hard for him to win. He would need new members and it's probably easier to sell membership to people with a cause or ideology.

It seems there are at least 7 Quebec MPs willing to support Charest. So they are looking for someone other than Poilievre (maybe they will endorse him if he is the sure winner). Two Harper appointed Senators and organizers are supporting Poilievre.

Quebec politics bewilders me.

Most of the Quebec Tory caucus are CAQuists. I get why they wouldn't want Poillievre, but Charest as a PLQ Premier seems like a bad fit as well. Is it as simple as backing a fellow Quebecer or am I missing something else?

I'm not from Quebec, but my hunch is that it's an alliance of pragmatism more than anything else. Poilievre is a much more dogmatic conservative than the CAQ government represents, he's more PCQ in that sense. There's no reason to believe that Poilievre would be a good fit for Quebec - Charest, while hated by many Quebecers, did win three provincial elections, Liberal or not.

When Charest became PLQ leader, there was no CAQ, and its predecessor ADQ had one seat. Even Legault was a Pequiste back then. For the most part, any good federalist like Charest in the 90s would align with the Liberals, and for that matter, any good nationalist like Legault would join PQ. So the feelings are probably less hard towards someone like Charest compared to someone who joined the PLQ after ADQ/CAQ became a genuine force in Quebec politics.

[Krago]

I just got an automated telephone poll for the Conservative leadership.  The poll prompted for six names:

- Pierre Poilievre
- Leslyn Lewis
- Jean Charest
- Michael Chong
- Patrick Brown
- Roman Baber

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

- Pierre Poilievre
- Leslyn Lewis
- Jean Charest
- Michael Chong
- Patrick Brown
- Roman Baber

Roman Baber? Lol. Maybe he's thinking about running and sponsored the poll that you got, I'm not sure what independent polling firm would prompt for a rookie MPP best known for leaving the party.

[Central Lake]

As for what laddicus finch was saying about Charest and Doug Ford in the GTA. As someone who lives there I think the issues that are the most important and the CPC should focus on are:

1. Public transit infrastructure
2. Cost of Housing
3. General Affordability and cost of living

Not that it is guaranteed to win votes but I think it is the best approach.

[Central Lake]

https://twitter.com/SyntheticPol/status/1493872944501559300?cxt=HHwWiMCoyebhprsp...
This map of ridings that gets CPC to 150 with minimal gains in the GTA.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

https://twitter.com/SyntheticPol/status/1493872944501559300?cxt=HHwWiMCoyebhprsp...
This map of ridings that gets CPC to 150 with minimal gains in the GTA.

143-137 is a very small margin to be targeting though. Short of winning over rural Quebec, this strategy would be a difficult one to pull off, and impossible to win a majority.

[Central Lake]

https://twitter.com/SyntheticPol/status/1493872944501559300?cxt=HHwWiMCoyebhprsp...
This map of ridings that gets CPC to 150 with minimal gains in the GTA.

143-137 is a very small margin to be targeting though. Short of winning over rural Quebec, this strategy would be a difficult one to pull off, and impossible to win a majority.

Oh, maybe I should have clarified to ignore the tweet at the bottom about path to power.
Certainly not the only strategy and ridings the CPC should be targeting. They should do this in conjunction with other strategies. Personally, I think they combine this with a "Ford nation' effect in Toronto and Vancouver.

However, I think the strategy above in the map should be priority No.1. It is a good starting point. It is probably the path of least resistance in winning more seats. Also, I think Conservative supporters will be more comfortable pursuing this kind of strategy than a Oakville/Burlington strategy. (white upper middle class areas)

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

https://twitter.com/SyntheticPol/status/1493872944501559300?cxt=HHwWiMCoyebhprsp...
This map of ridings that gets CPC to 150 with minimal gains in the GTA.

143-137 is a very small margin to be targeting though. Short of winning over rural Quebec, this strategy would be a difficult one to pull off, and impossible to win a majority.

Oh, maybe I should have clarified to ignore the tweet at the bottom about path to power.
Certainly not the only strategy and ridings the CPC should be targeting. They should do this in conjunction with other strategies. Personally, I think they combine this with a "Ford nation' effect in Toronto and Vancouver.

However, I think the strategy above in the map should be priority No.1. It is a good starting point. It is probably the path of least resistance in winning more seats. Also, I think Conservative supporters will be more comfortable pursuing this kind of strategy than a Oakville/Burlington strategy. (white upper middle class areas)

Interestingly, the 'Ford Nation' effect did wonders in some upper middle class suburbs (York Region), but not as well as you'd expect of the Tories in other upper middle class suburbs like Halton Region, specifically Oakville and Burlington. York and Halton are both some of the most well-off and highly-educated parts of Ontario. The key difference seems demographics other than income - York Region is predominantly "white ethnic" (primarily Italian and Jewish) and Chinese, while Halton Region is more "WASP", with a recent influx of South Asians in Oakville and especially Milton.

Rural whites in Ontario without a university education are already largely in the Tory column, and in the part of rural Ontario where they're not (i.e., Northern Ontario), the trend is heading that way. Very urban areas, regardless of ethnic makeup, are not worth pursuing for the Tories. But the suburbs are kind of a weird mix, white suburbanites aren't as homogenous as they used to be (in the Harper years, there wasn't really a difference in how York and Halton voted), and non-white suburbs tend to be even harder to get a pulse on, like the suburban Chinese-Canadian vote which swung hard to the Liberals in 2021, after having voted Conservative in 2015 and 2019.

[Central Lake]

Yeah, personally, I think outside of wave elections, Halton Region is pretty much gone for the Conservatives.

[King of Kensington]

But the suburbs are kind of a weird mix, white suburbanites aren't as homogenous as they used to be (in the Harper years, there wasn't really a difference in how York and Halton voted), and non-white suburbs tend to be even harder to get a pulse on, like the suburban Chinese-Canadian vote which swung hard to the Liberals in 2021, after having voted Conservative in 2015 and 2019.

Heavily Chinese Markham and Richmond Hill swung away from the CPC, while heavily Italian Vaughan trended more blue.  Italians are fairly evenly split now it seems.

[Central Lake]

If you watch 44:00-44:36 in the video.

Are whites in Ajax traditionally composed of WASPs?

[King of Kensington]

Yes, whites in the eastern suburbs are mostly "non-ethnic" Anglo Canadians.  European ethnics have moved north and west.   The pattern was set decades ago.  In the pre-gentrified city of Toronto of 50 years ago the west end was working class ethnic, the east end was working class anglo. 

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

If you watch 44:00-44:36 in the video.

Are whites in Ajax traditionally composed of WASPs?

Yes, whites in Durham Region are probably the most WASP of any region of the GTA. But Ajax is majority-minority now, predominantly South Asian and black populations that have moved eastwards from Scarborough, so the partisan makeup is more Liberal-friendly now.

[King of Kensington]

Ajax in fact had the highest Liberal vote share in the 905 in the last two federal elections.

When Toronto became a "global city" starting in the 1970s Scarborough went from anglo working class to one of the most diverse places in the GTA.  And Ajax has become an eastern extension of eastern Scarborough with its large South Asian and Black populations.  

[beesley]

It will be interesting to see how much of Ford's minority support he holds on to - of course it won't be uniform across all groups, and is unlikely to reach O'Toole levels, but if the loss is greater or smaller than average then there'll be some variable swings. (Yes, I realise that sounds like a fairly empty and vacuous statement).

[Хahar 🤔]

I would like leadership candidates to talk about their general election strategy and plans to add to the Conservative vote pool. Which is at 33%-34% in the last two elections.

However, I really prefer when leadership candidates explain this in terms of demography and geography and really dislike it when they make their case by invoking a political spectrum or a time spectrum.

For example if Jean Charest said CPC currently has 10 seats in Quebec and I can get 20 seats in Quebec by appealing to so and so, I am willing to hear me about. But if Jean Charest said I will win additional seats because I am moderate, or I will appeal to moderates, I am ignoring him.

Another example is John Tory saying I won the Toronto mayoral race so I can win additional seats in the GTA. Or if Doug Ford said I won seats in the GTA provincially so I can win GTA seats federally. These are just hypotheticals on my part but I hope I am communicating my point.

Whenever people say moderates, modernize, or the center, I am very unimpressed. I also find it irritating.

The problem is that the Canadian electorate is so volatile that this sort of analysis is not particularly meaningful. It's very difficult to identify any meaningful trends in Canada. When Trudeau was running for the Liberal leadership, what was his pitch in these terms? You can say that he appealed to urban and suburban voters, but you can't really get more granular than that, because whatever trends seemed to have been happening in 2006 and 2008 and 2011 were erased in 2015.

[Poirot]

Maybe it's more people asking him to run and takes his time to give an answer because it could be his last chance to have a path to become Prime Minister. Poilievre probably has a big lead at the start. Charest's appeal could be he offers a better chance to get votes from moderates, centrists, disenchanted Liberals, more Quebec votes and he is a very good campaigner. But the conservative membership is probably not looking for that. It would be hard for him to win. He would need new members and it's probably easier to sell membership to people with a cause or ideology.

It seems there are at least 7 Quebec MPs willing to support Charest. So they are looking for someone other than Poilievre (maybe they will endorse him if he is the sure winner). Two Harper appointed Senators and organizers are supporting Poilievre.

That's the question though, who are these "disenchanted Liberals"? And why do we assume Charest would win them over?

I think the assumption is that this would be blue liberals, bay street boys, etc. This is not a huge portion of the Canadian population by any stretch, and the influence of those interests isn't what it used to be. The most effective model for a Conservative victory in the GTA in today's context is shown by Doug Ford - someone whose appeal is nothing like Charest's. The hypothesis that there is a mass of blue Liberals who like Liberal values but want less spending was tested in 2021, and it didn't work out too well for O'Toole.

In my experience, disenchantment among the Liberal base is coming from young people and people frustrated about covid measures - the venn diagram between those two has a lot of overlap. Between Jean Charest and Pierre Poilievre, the latter is an infinitely better choice to appeal to this group. Anyone in English Canada who is under 40 and not obsessed with politics has no idea who Jean Charest is, and Quebecers under 40 don't exactly tend to have the fondest memories of the guy.

Edit: To be clear, I don't think Poilievre is a silver bullet who would energize disenchanted voters into propelling the Tories back to power. Poilievre is an ideologue, and dogmatic conservatism isn't super popular in Canada these days. But the hypothesis that Jean Charest would chip off Liberal voters because he's fiscally conservative and culturally liberal assumes that there are lots of current Liberal voters looking for that, and I don't think that's the case. If I'm right, and frustration among the Liberal base is coming from young people who are losing faith in the political establishment, Charest seems like the exact opposite of what they would want.

There was a newspaper article suggesting a new party could be formed of conservatives more centrist and Liberals. I don't know how big blue Liberals represent. It could be people who would feel comfotrable with the old Progressive Conservative party who are now Liberals because they don't like the new Conservative party for its style or positions.

O'Toole seemed to do well until he was on the defensive on gun policy and vaccines. Someone like Charest could make it easier for voters looking for change but not extreme. But it probably wouldn't work if a big part of the party is not happy and shoot from the inside. Charest is good at campaign, good at debate and good at attacking opponents. Ontario is the most important and I admit I don't know what would work best there.

It's strange that so far only one person is running. I guess many putchists were ready with Poilievre. I don't know when the rules for the leadership will be announced, maybe others will declare interest then.