Election

This may be the most remarkable election since 1968. Certainly it is by the current numbers. (I vaguely remember the 1968 Liberal convention coverage. I certainly remember Trudeaumania.)

 

Two weeks and a bit into a campaign, before the debates, feels like being early to call a result. But it may be worthwhile, cautiously, to point out certain things:

 

1) That Liberal majority in the polls does not (much) result from a Red Tory Carney picking up votes from the left edge of the CPC (non-ML). It seems to be what happens when a majority of normally NDP voters decide that blocking Poilièvre at all costs is preferable to the alternative. (The fact that Jagmeet Singh is not necessarily popular with true progressives doesn't hurt either.) This means that there's little chance of the Conservative campaign changing many minds: the CPC is generally holding its core voters but cratering nevertheless. (By the same token, the ability to get large rallies out of CPC supporters will benefit them nothing, other than perhaps revving up the canvassers they need (Jenni Byrne is supposed to be good at managing "the ground game"), as it doesn't expand their support. If anything, by being Trumpy in style, it might reduce their potential support.)

 

It helps the Liberals that when Carney can go all Prime Ministerial, i.e. when he has to "break from campaigning" to deal with Trump he sounds genuine, serious, and positive. Some commentators are throwing around words like "Churchillian", though that may be going a bit far.

 

2) The fact that Carney is visibly uncomfortable with campaigning may actually be to his advantage among people who are tired of "politicians" but just want decent government.

 

3) The split between the Ontario (and Maritime: let us not forget Peter MacKay and his legacy) and Western wings emerging into the daylight is in no way good for the CPC. It sort of makes the election start to look like the latter parts of the fight between King Arthur and the Black Knight. ("Only a flesh wound").

 

4) In theory, the Liberals could still slip up badly, especially in the debates. But given the underlying dynamics, it would take a really impressive disaster to make a lot of the people who have indicated they support the Liberals in this election to stay at home and risk a win by Poilievre.

 

The debates are likely to be a stark contrast: on one side, an experienced attack dog whose key election lines are all negative[1] and in the other a very much not-a-politician whose core messages all fall ino the two buckets of "positive" and "bracing". I suspect that viewers will largely take away what they came with.

 

[1]Aside from a lot of tax cuts. When faced with a crisis, what else can small-government conservatives do?

 

5) Finally, there's the loose cannon of Danielle Smith. She plays to her supporters; her local support is strengthened by being seen as anti-Ottawa and relatively pro-American. But in the key areas of Ontario and Quebec it just puts most people's backs up, including a fair number of PC voters. (There's a swathe of Doug Ford supporters who dislike Smith, rather like Carney, and don't mind the idea of a Liberal PM with extensive financial and business experience. They might not vote for Carney, but if they don't they are liable to stay home.) And Poilievre will not, possibly cannot, condemn her univocally and strongly. Her behaviour may not shift many votes, but it is certainly likely to confirm anti-CPC voters in their views.

 

So one can be somewhat hopeful that at least, with the whole world going to rack and ruin, we may get our best shot to minimize the damage here at home.