2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election

[adma]

Pierre has the persona of a campus Conservative fixated on "owning" libs. 

Kind of fulfilling Andrew Coyne's point from not so long back...

"Moreover, while the Liberals, as the party of power and therefore of cabinet posts, have always been able to recruit individuals with a record of accomplishment in other fields, the Conservatives tend to get stuck with the lifers, people who have never done anything but partisan politics and are motivated by nothing so much as hatred of the Grits. Which may explain why the party’s leading lights so often look and sound like campus Conservatives."


 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-more-than-leadership-or-policy-its-the-conservative-temperament-thats/

[adma]

I'd caution against the notion that Poilievre is simply too right-wing to win a general election though. The closest parallel to Pierre Poilievre in recent Canadian history might be Mike Harris (except Harris had private-sector experience, so more credibility on that front), and whatever you think about Mike Harris, he was a winner. Ginning up the existing pool of right-wing voters, while letting the Liberals bleed votes out of fatigue, might not be the worst strategy.

Actually, *the* closest too-right-wing-to-win parallel in recent Canadian history is Rob Ford as Toronto Mayor in '10.  (Doug Ford as Premier in '18 was more a matter of coasting on fumes and infrastructure already in place upon Patrick Brown's abrupt departure.)

Even Harris wasn't necessarily "too right wing"--his party still had Big Blue Machine good will floating about it going into '95.  Any cast of "unelectability" had more to do w/their preceding '87-95 3rd party slumber and the reflected inglory of the federal PC implosion and rise of Reform in '93.

[adma]

I'd caution against the notion that Poilievre is simply too right-wing to win a general election though. The closest parallel to Pierre Poilievre in recent Canadian history might be Mike Harris (except Harris had private-sector experience, so more credibility on that front), and whatever you think about Mike Harris, he was a winner. Ginning up the existing pool of right-wing voters, while letting the Liberals bleed votes out of fatigue, might not be the worst strategy.

Actually, *the* closest too-right-wing-to-win parallel in recent Canadian history is Rob Ford as Toronto Mayor in '10.  (Doug Ford as Premier in '18 was more a matter of coasting on fumes and infrastructure already in place upon Patrick Brown's abrupt departure.)

Even Harris wasn't necessarily "too right wing"--his party still had Big Blue Machine good will floating about it going into '95.  Any cast of "unelectability" had more to do w/their preceding '87-95 3rd party slumber and the reflected inglory of the federal PC implosion and rise of Reform in '93.

Harris was still backed by the Big Blue Machine, but said machine lost its power after Bill Davis Left. Let's not forget, in 1987 and 1990, the Tories finished in a rather embarassing third place. Harris rode an anti-NDP wave on his "common sense revolution" rhetoric, which was pretty different from what the likes of Bill Davis won on.

1987 *was* a catastrophe, but one might argue that 1990 under Harris wasn't a bad salvage-job outcome and a reasonable foundation for what was to come in '95.  And whatever the rhetoric, the time-honoured Ontario PC brand momentarily assuaged the fears of those wary of "redneck Reformers"--though as it became clear over the course of the Harris regime that they meant what they said, the moderates sat on their hands or migrated away.

Also don't forget Harper in '04 and going into '06 when it comes to the "too right-wing to win a general election" pigeonhole.

[adma]

Frankly, I've seen more Russia apologism from the NDP (not the leadership of course, but the more far-left members like Niki Ashton and Svend Robinson). But now that Russia is effectively invading Ukraine, I think this kind of thing will be limited to hardcore tankies and some corners of the far-right, but without a voice in any mainstream Canadian party.

I'm not sure if it's "Russian apologism" per se from the NDP, so much as harping on the far-right element to Ukrainian nationalism, or Chrystia Freeland's familial connections to all of that.  A sort of pointing-to-Stepan-Bandera whataboutism...

[adma]

But with how many people loathe Liberals, I doubt party falls below 100 seats.  Tories have a very high floor in seats, but very low ceiling thus why always looks like close to winning but cannot get over top.

Not so much "how many people", but *where* those people are.  Or for the Cons to fall below 100 at this point, the Libs/NDP are going to have to finagle a few more breakthroughs in Prairie cities...

[adma]

But my point is more Tories double down on their right wing ideology, the more seats that will fall out of reach many their already difficult path to 170 while go from steep uphill climb to impossible.  Liberals at least after 2011 disaster were forced to do a major shake up, but because Tories have far more safe seats, they are not likely to ever lose badly enough to force this.  Victory will always appear close even if not.

Well, that is true; which is why I merely suggested "under 100" as within the realm of possibility.  The Cons aren't likely to fall to the 34-seat depths of Iggy, or even 77 seats a la Dion, unless really crazy 1993-style splits in the right or even grander grand coalitions on the centre and left come to be.

[adma]

My experience with Francos outside of Quebec has mostly been Franco-Ontarians in the Ottawa area who are basically the worst possible demographic for the Tories. They're attached to the LPC, tend to be socially progressive, and are mostly either from a lower socio-economic background or work for the government. Rural Franco-Ontarians might be more culturally conservative and amenable to the Tories, but even then they're significantly less so than the rest of rural Ontario. Just look at Glengarry--Prescott--Russell, an LPC-voting Franco-majority rural riding, compared to its uber-Tory anglo counterparts in Eastern Ontario.

In any case, this is not a bloc of voters the Tories should really focus much on winning over. They're a majority in a few Ontario and NB ridings and can swing elections in a handful of other ridings in those provinces, as well as one or two in Manitoba and Nova Scotia. But in general, we're talking about a very small slice of the electorate. Non-Quebec Francophones make up about 3% of the Canadian population.

I think that Franco-Ottawans (at least those of the "Vanier" variety) are an exceptional case--it'd be like viewing Franco-Quebec through the prism of a Quebec Solidaire stronghold.

As far as "winning over" goes; well, if you're thinking in terms of something monolithic a la the Jewish electorate in the '00s or the Chinese electorate in the '10s (though the latter reneged in '21), that's out of the question.  However, an incremental "sufficient numbers" strategy is not out of the question, and indeed has been in place for some time now--the SDSG Conservative monolith being reinforced by Franco-Cornwall "in sufficient numbers", to take one case.  Or how a lot of Prairie towns with substantial Franco/Metis populations are now Conservative--maybe 60% Conservative vs 80% in the rest of the riding; but, still, Conservative...

[adma]

Northern Ontario generally swung towards the Conservatives. Kenora which was a CON hold went from 34% Conservative in 2019 to 42% Conservative in 2021. To flip some of the NDP held ridings in Northern Ontario to the Conservatives, will probably entail a combination of strategies.

1. conventional WWC appeals
2. retaining O'Toole's blue collar strategy/adapting some things of Monte McNaughton
3. making overtures to the mining, forestry sectors?
4. do outreach and try to move needle in Indigenous communities
5. try to increase the CON vote share among Franco Canadians.

At least this is what I think.

Hate to be explicit about it, but some of the "strategy" (or at least outcomes) over time are more to do with a *suppressed* Indigenous vote--compare ridings like Kenora and Desnethe in 2015 to either 2011 or 2019 (not just party share, but overall turnout), and you'll know what I mean...

[adma]

Keep in mind that in Ontario in 1985 the NDP signed an accord that put the Ontario Liberals in power. It did not work out so badly for the NDP. In the subsequent 1987 election the Liberals won a majority but the NDP also gained ground and became the official opposition and then in 1990 when Ontarians wanted to throw out the Ontario Liberals - they gave the NDP under Bob Rae a majority!

Actually, while the NDP in 1987 gained ground in share, they lost ground in seats--however, w/the Tories losing even more ground, the NDP assumed official opposition, which was symbolically important w/regard to 1990...

[adma]

When was the last time there were two federal leadership candidates from the same electoral district, I wonder?

Not just that, but two *twice over*, both in the GTA (Baber & Etienne; Lewis & Singh, if one counts Lewis's '15 run)

[adma]

I just realized something - the CPC and its predecessor parties have never had a Francophone leader. The two frontrunners of this race are both Francophones - Poilievre grew up in the west and is therefore more immersed in English, but he was raised by Franco parents and speaks pretty decent French.

Well, if you're speaking of "predecessor parties", you cannot forget the matter of one Jean Charest, leader of the federal Progressive Conservatives in the 1997 election.

Plus, Brian Mulroney being Quebecker by birth, even if Irish-Canadian by origin--so his case is sort of the reverse of Poilievre being a Westerner w/Franco parents...

[adma]

And chasing the PPC vote only enhances the problem of not winning where needed.

He seems to be running on a libertarian like platform and I am not sure libertarianism has near enough support to win nationally.  Its probably true millennials more likely to hold libertarian viewpoints than boomers, but despite some backlash due to pandemic on rules, not sure there is the kind of ground swell on wanting to dramatically reduce government to take him to power.  I think arguing government has gotten a bit too big and will trim its excesses but not blow it up like Charest favours has potential.

Re the "millennials more likely to hold libertarian viewpoints" argument:  I've heard it argued that millennials are more likely to conscientiously hold *big government* viewpoints; thus their support for Justin/Jagmeet or Bernie/AOC.  (Then again, there could be a cultural or even gender divide among said millennials: males swinging libertarian, females swinging big-government, etc.  And probably paralleling other gender-divide trends, including those involving higher education where there's been a significant "male drain" in recent times.  And of course, it's among the proverbial "aggrieved young males" that PPC has its deepest basin of support.)

[adma]

In my experience, gender is a massive dividing line among Canadian millennials and zoomers, and one that Skippy would exacerbate. I think the small number of women under 35 who vote Tory would only get smaller with him as leader, but I can see a lot of men under 35 who don't normally vote Tory supporting him.

And I'm also wondering whether impressions of greater libertarian tendencies among younger people might at times reflect the gender of those offering such impressions (sometimes, political forums and Twitter can seem like a bit of a boy's club).

[adma]

And as I indicated, trends like this also reflect the pattern.

https://hechingerreport.org/the-pandemic-is-speeding-up-the-mass-disappearance-of-men-from-college/

Almost like, stuff like crypto investment standing as proof for its champions that "college isn't necessary".

[adma]

And as I indicated, trends like this also reflect the pattern.

https://hechingerreport.org/the-pandemic-is-speeding-up-the-mass-disappearance-of-men-from-college/

Almost like, stuff like crypto investment standing as proof for its champions that "college isn't necessary".

How many non-college voters are there going to be in even the conservative leadership election ?

It isn't about those who are going to vote in the leadership election, it's about those who are promised to be part of the general-election big tent.  Sort of like Jagmeet and hip ethno-millennials (or even PET and boomer flower children).

Four decades ago, it was about a new tribe of ReaganCon; now it's about a new tribe of RoganCon, so to speak.  (And even the appeal of Ontario's "hash dealer dropout" premier is premised on this.)

And they're *very* prominent on social media, because, well...social media is their ivory-tower proxy.

[adma]

Manitoba has the most socially conservative ridings in Canada, so not surprising Leslyn Lewis doing best among Manitoba Conservatives.

Or Skippy doing weakest, if we presume that's plumped in the Leslyn Lewis direction out Steinbach/Winkler way, shadowing the best PPC figures last year.

[adma]

Interesting how Poilievre supporters are the most anti-monarchy out of the candidates.

Probably because he's cornered the Bitcoin-libertarian whiz kids. He's like a less off-the-deep-end version of pre-PPC Max Bernier in that light.

[adma]

Kind of reminds me of Stephen Harper's "Old Stock Canadians" statement.  (Ironically, his using that phrase has led to *my own* self-aware usage of the same, at least when it comes to places that are legacy less-than-ethnoburban--like, those polls in Markham-Stouffville where Jane Philpott did best in '19)

[adma]

I might need a little more context in order to relax my hackles - for example, was "Old Stock Canadians" a phrase that was in use before Harper? Because these days I tend to see it only from white spremacist-adjacent places. Despite having always floated around the margins of Tory circles I never really heard it elsewhere.

If it hadn't been a dogwhistle before, the way the phrase was pounced upon by the media (including social media) sort of fueled its dogwhistle-ism henceforth.  (Though again, when I use the phrase, I sort of fold the dogwhistle stigma against itself.  After all, one might argue that in Ontario in 2018, Kathleen Wynne had more "Old Stock" appeal than the polyglot of Ford Nation.)

[adma]

Let's also remember re libertarian populism that part of what sealed Max Bernier's doom in his bid for the Con leadership was his paradoxical lack of support in QC relative to what was expected of him...

[adma]

Yeah, I can see Charest bunched up w/Lewis the same way that Charlie Angus was bunched up w/Niki Ashton in the Jagmeet NDP coronation...

[adma]

Say what you want about Skippy, his acceptance speech was better than we've heard from a Conservative leader in a LONG time. Even a lot of Liberals online were saying that.

Though IMO he'll *always* speak with the strangely offputting intonation of an eternal Campus Conservative--then again, that could be no more of a barrier than Chretien's fractured English (and French).

His cleverest "humanizing" gesture was putting his wife up front.

[adma]

Or they just supported PP because as the 'consensus candidate' it was his race to lose. Same with the PC types from further up. Like there comes a point where a candidate is just that popular within his lane that all types of voters in all types of factions support them, with the exception of the most radical parts of those factions.

Just like with Jagmeet for the NDP--Niki Ashton holding on to the "radical parts", and Charlie Angus, while not the wet noodle Charest was, being reduced to "remnant vote" status...

[adma]

His populism is anti-Laurentian. I won't go into it too much, but this concept of the "Laurentian Elite" was popularized by author/commentator John Ibbitson during the Harper years. The idea is that there's a certain "elite" based in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal axis that dominates politics in Canada, but also academia, entertainment, media, etc. They tend to be centre-to-centre-left, pretty deferential to state authority, anti-American, pro-welfare state but pro-business, and practice soft protectionism. "Populist conservatism" in Canada exists as a counter to that, and while Harper was a bit too boring to come off as a "real" populist, he championed the same kind of anti-Laurentian populism that Poilievre now champions.

The sentiment of a populist conservative in Canada re: the Laurentian elite is described by Ibbitson as:
They're running the country but they're running it into the ground, and they won't listen to us.

So with that framework, a populist conservative in Canada doesn't care if a politician has a fairly elite background, which Poilievre doesn't really. I mean to the extent that being a career politician undercuts his populist bona fides, remember that his opponent is the son of a famous Prime Minister. But what's more relevant to Poilievre's populism is the strident anti-Laurentian politics.

Will it resonate with Canadians? It will resonate with Canadians to the extent that Canadians agree with the sentiment that the Liberals are running the country but they're running it into the ground, and they won't listen to us.

And said "anti-Laurentianism" might also subliminally help explain Poilievre's apparent youth appeal, if it truly is "a thing".

Let's keep in mind that the bulk of Canada's Millennial/post-Millennial cohort does *not* come from a Laurentian backround--like so-called "cultural elites" everywhere, Laurentians don't tend to harness themselves to traditional family-making, and haven't really done so for going on half a century.  We're talking about a cohort that grew up in predominantly suburban-type environments, McMansion & Tim's country, so to speak, and in an era when such one-time "family rituals" as daily newspapers vanished from the radar.  "Laurentianism" is thus remote from their everyday existence, and curiously "OK Boomer" older-generation at that.  They might have parked in the Justin and/or Jagmeet camps because of the residual power of, uh, "gatekeepers"; but what Pierre's telling them is, those gatekeepers are giving you a raw deal.  They may seem "trendy", but they have nothing to do with you.  They're using you, and giving you nothing in return.

The anti-elite tone might be *especially* pertinent when it comes to Poilievre's "male appeal", and in tune with the decline in the male university cohort and their not-unrelated ingrained anti-authority skepticism--he'd be big with the "Joe Rogan U" crowd, for sure. which is about as polar opposite from "Laurentian" as one can get...

[adma]

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)