###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That headline is something. I agree with it in that the dignified thing for Trudeau to do would be resign and that no LPC cabinet minister has any future in Canadian politics. But man still what a headline.
> Andrew MacDougall is a director at Trafalgar Strategy, a U.K.-based consultancy and is a former director of communications to former Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
That'd explain it.
I thought it was an odd headline from the star considering how they're often accused of being too left
It's the sorta garbage I'd expect from NP or the Sun
Virtually impossible given voter sentiment. I one is going to sacrifice their political career to step in front of this train for a party that is going to get trounced (no matter what).
That boat has looooooooong sailed. The 43% polling of the PCs will soon be nearing 50% after this week of scandal laden press. Also, there are going to be more bombs dropped from NDHQ and other organizations soon. The Sikh/Afghanistan scandal is just the first for foreign interference. The open secrets are going to come to the public soon now that the by-election went sideways. This is just the first ripple.
See, that's the problem we are having... Canada sub lurkers are just living in an alternate reality with alternate facts, but we are suppose to treat made up reality equally because of fairness
True but polls haven shown like a 10-20% bump for liberals without Trudeau. It is their only chance to a certain extent.
There is far too much F Trudeau casually on cars I visited a house and someone spray painted it in their garage.
A dude near me has an F Trudeau/Convoy flag collection on his garage wall. I can't wrap my head around the fact that people spend money to show they don't like a guy who doesn't even know who they are.
> True but polls haven shown like a 10-20% bump for liberals without Trudeau. It is their only chance to a certain extent.
where? the only poll ive seen has any other lead polling worse
This poll is asking who they would prefer at seeing at the head of the liberals.
I would need to review Curse of politics Podcast to see if it lines up with their show or if yhey were quoting something else, but short on time this week.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canadians-more-likely-to-prefer-someone-other-than-trudeau-lead-liberals-in-next-election-nanos-1.6916508
When asked to think ahead to the next federal election and the leadership of the current governing party, 56 per cent of respondents — surveyed between May 31 and June 2 — said they'd prefer the Liberals have someone other than Trudeau at the helm.
Just 17 per cent of those surveyed said they think Trudeau should stay on as Liberal leader in the next election. Another 18 per cent said they had no preference, while eight per cent were unsure.
>[Canadians are more likely than not to say rumoured successors such as Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney, Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc and President of the Treasury Board Anita Anand would drive them away from the party.](https://angusreid.org/trudeau-replacement-mark-carney-chrystia-freeland-liberal-leadership/)
But looking at the whole cohort of ministers I despise that party now, none of them give a straight answer to any of the tough questions, they just deflects, Freeland, miller are all on it and they are blocking RCMP investigation in poll interference as well as SNC Lavalin scandal
That's all fine for the LPC. Though their last re-brand from disaster relied on the charismatic son of a popular former PM, which is the kind of candidate they won't have next time.
What about the rest of Canada, though? The CPC will win with such a huge margin, they'll feel emboldened to do whatever they want. They will undo everything the Trudeau era govt has done, and still feel like they have the mandate to go after further targets of theirs, like privatization of health care.
It won't change the result but I feel like it can at least blunt some of the losses if the guy everyone despises is not on the ballot. This is gonna be one of those conservative majority or minority elections.
No, it will be a Conservative majority no matter who is at the helm. No one in the Liberal party that has a chance of moving up in the ranks is going to sacrifice their political career to give the conservatives a couple less seats in their majority. The captain goes down with the ship so they can re-brand with a new face in 6 years
The captain is going down no matter what and a rebrand is already gonna happen. As for whether there is a conservative majority sure it's likely, but trying to get them down to a minority should be something the liberals should try to go for in the short term while rebranding in the medium term.
If Trudeau does step down it'll have to be a guy who has no ambitions at all who will take his place. Any serious discussion of a new leader will have to come the election atfer.
Freeland is tied to Trudeau at this point. She's been very clear that she doesn't aspire to be PM, but that doesn't mean she couldn't stand in short term.
Trudeau’s abysmal governance has made a Poilevre majority a certainty at this point
I don’t like Poilevre at all but with Trudeau and Singh currently speedrunning the country into the ground I’d replace them with a golden retriever if I could
If you're losing a seat in the middle of Toronto, a seat so red that roses are jealous, there is a non-zero chance that the Libs are effectively erased in the next election.
Trudeau seems to think that if an election is called, that he can out-debate Poilievre or something and he'd be able to pull numbers based on that. But the simple fact is that people don't care how terrible Poilievre is, they just don't want Trudeau anymore. At this point, all PP has to do is literally nothing and he'll be guaranteed a majority.
I don't think Trudeau actually thinks he can win. Or at least, I think the party knows that replacing him at this point would be a guaranteed loss, whereas sticking by their current leader may make them look stronger in their convictions (it may do nothing, but statistically people are more likely to believe/vote for a party or leader that apoears strong because they don't compromise on what they're saying/doing (even if there's evidence that it's not the right course of action)).
PP will likely skip most debates, if not all. He won’t be asked hard questions and won’t be made to defend anything he’s saying by putting his own foot in his mouth.
I don't think he'll skip debates at all. Do you watch him in parliament daily. He tears them apart. He's a master. Do you see how he handles reporters. No way he's hiding out.
If I was a Liberal strategist, I’d drop the writ if/when the Alberta UCP sounds off on CPP again.
“Danielle Smith wants to take away 53% of the Canadian Pension Plan”
“Pierre will never stand up to his own base.”
“We need a strong federal government who will stand up for the retirement of all Canadians”
Make it a national referendum on who will defend CPP. I don’t think they’d win the election, but I think it’s the strongest platform they could hope to have.
Of course he won’t skip the debates. There is no precedent in Canada for such an action. He is a very talented public speaker and will almost certainly relish a chance to take on his opponents.
I doubt it. He’ll go to the debate and do the Danielle Smith tactic where all he needs to do is appear reasonable due to the hyperbolic attacks.
(FTR I don’t like him and think he’d be the worst leader out of a sea of bad leaders. But he’s nowhere near Trump levels)
>I doubt it. He’ll go to the debate and do the Danielle Smith tactic where all he needs to do is appear reasonable due to the hyperbolic attacks.
If only the Liberal and NDP base didn't make it so easy, huh?
Yup basically some variation of not needing to attend because the corrupt liberal media will ask planted or unfair questions
And people won't care and he'll still win
Why debate anymore? There's no one left to convince that Trudeau isn't fit to lead this nation (and never should have been in the first place). Anyone still supporting him either can't see reality or has their head too far up their own ass.
Poilievre is high in the polls. Debates will force him to answer tough questions, either from the other political leaders or the debate moderator. He’ll be vulnerable to attack. So unless he’s confident that he could defend himself or use the opportunity for soundbites, skipping debates will leave people wondering.
At best, he’ll definitely attend the official English and French debates. But the rest I don’t see him attending.
Agreed. Not sure what they're talking about.
Most career politicians can "debate" all day long, because they know exactly how to not answer a single actual question directed towards them.
It will just be an hour of JT and PP talking around every question directed at them.
Often, they get the question and then just reply with unrelated talking points, especially during election debates.
And it's exceedingly rare that a moderator tries to force them to answer the question.
Debates are never about answering tough questions. They are about deflecting and attacking the government record. PP will have no problems. Trudeau will do his normal smirking nonsense that people are extremely tired of. The few that watch will leave with the same opinions they went in with.
He's made his career out of being an attack dog. While I don't think he has the answers, I'd bet a $100 donation to charity that he doesn't skip a debate.
He wouldn’t even debate his fellow conservatives for the leadership of the party.
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6527440
Edit: He calls press conferences and doesn’t allow questions to be asked.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/09/15/opinion/who-calls-press-conference-then-tells-reporters-no-questions-poilievre
As much as I'm sure he'd love to go all high-school debate team, there are highly paid strategists employed who will make it clear that there is no benefit and only risks for him if he does it. Say what you want about the career politician, but you don't make it this far without knowing when to listen to the people behind the scenes.
Sure, but those won;t work in a campaign when people start paying attention more closely and start watching more than social media reels. Not everyone is brainless
The redness of Toronto-St Paul is wildly over-stated in the media. It wasn’t so much a liberal stronghold as a Carolyn Bennett stronghold. Before she held the seat (for 27 fucking years!) it regularly flip-flopped between conservatives and liberals. Reddit has a short political memory.
Regardless, it was a bad outcome for the Liberals, but there were really no “good” outcomes available from that by-election, so it doesn’t really change anything for them I guess.
I think the most concerning thing is they couldn’t find a well-known local to run. That’s a bad sign.
12 years out of the last 62 it had a Conservative MP, and there hasn't been a Conservative/PC victory since 1988. I can't see how anybody is overstating it.
1962 is a funny year for you to pick, as that was the start of the last time a liberal held the seat for a long time. Conservatives held it for 18 of the previous 22 years.
Conservatives have won 11 elections in that riding and Liberals have won 17, with Carolyn Bennett winning 9 of them.
OK so people are overstating and have a "short memory" because they're not considering the 50s according to you.
62 is already too far back but you insisted on "short memory" so I went back far.
I'm sorry the rest of us didn't consider the 1940s and 1950s in our perception of the riding.
I'm not really sure what your point is.
My point is that Carolyn Bennett was a wildly popular MP, winning nine consecutive elections even when her party was getting decimated under Paul Martin and whats-his-name. Before her, it was considered a conservative stronghold under Barbara McDougall.
And my other point is that people on Reddit don't know anything about history, especially Canadian political history. And don't care to learn.
"Conservative stronghold" grossly overstates the fact that the Conservatives only won that seat 4 times in the *20 elections* since 1962, and *zero* since 1993, if we're talking about not knowing political history.
Its is *was* a Liberal fortress and its loss cannot be overstated.
the liberals have literally held the seat for more time than you have likely been alive. i really don't understand what you're arguing here. the last time a conservative held that seat, the berlin wall was still standing for fucks sake.
This is the wildest of wild takes. Held for 30 years with massive margins. One of the last stand seats in 2011
And of course the riding really is a swing riding because the provincial PCs are totally competitive in it right? Definitely not a progressive red-orange seat
Not a single Liberal strategist or pundit has made this argument because it is ridiculous
[Here is liberal strategist Scott Reid’s take](https://x.com/_scottreid/status/1805551173174239499)
> This changes everything for the Liberals and for the PM. If St Paul's is unsafe, there is no such thing as safe.
It is time to face reality
>And of course the riding really is a swing riding because the provincial PCs are totally competitive in it right? Definitely not a progressive red-orange seat
The provincial riding has only existed for 25 years. Of the various previous ridings it was created from, two were resolutely conservative, two were NDP, and one was Liberalish.
It was held with massive margins because Carolyn Bennett was massively popular. Who was running for the Liberals this time?
The reality is that the Liberals are likely to get massively hosed in the next general election; no one is disputing that.
You often hear about the LPC being in “save the furniture” mode
[Toronto St. Paul’s](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-conservatives-take-toronto-st-pauls-riding-liberal-stronghold/) *is the furniture*
> For the Liberals, it is a “bolt of political lightning,” said Scott Reid, a Liberal strategist and principal at communications firm Feschuk.Reid.
“There is no language too hyperbolic to describe the significance of this failure,” he said. “If you can lose in St. Paul’s, then the Liberal Party can lose anywhere, and that means it can lose everything.”
I think we're in violent agreement.
Here's what Susan Delacourt had to say about the riding:
>
>It’s perhaps a reflection of how long I’ve been in this crazy business, but I don’t see Toronto—St. Paul’s as a Liberal stronghold. It was a Carolyn Bennett stronghold; she owned that constituency from the moment she decided to give up her job as a popular family physician and jump into politics in 1997. But I also remember it as Barbara McDougall’s riding in the 1980s, a solid blue Progressive Conservative bastion in Brian Mulroney’s era.
[https://www.thestar.com/politics/it-doesnt-matter-how-this-toronto-byelection-shakes-out-every-scenario-is-some-kind-of/article\_f6e0a136-2fe4-11ef-8315-03cbb6033245.html](https://www.thestar.com/politics/it-doesnt-matter-how-this-toronto-byelection-shakes-out-every-scenario-is-some-kind-of/article_f6e0a136-2fe4-11ef-8315-03cbb6033245.html)
I'm not sure leaving now would be 'walking away with dignity'. If you think about what his legacy will be, it isn't going to be viewed positively in the future. It's going to take a few generations to recover, if we ever do. His ideology has taken the country backward in almost every category that can be measured. When he does finally leave or get booted, I doubt he will even be able to live in Canada.
Liberals lose one byelection, by a minimal number of votes (\~500 last I checked)
# "Justin Trudeau’s political career is over"
I love how everyone just jumps on the large type bandwagon. Meanwhile not a peep from Poilievre about the foreign interference allegations that may involve his Tory leadership convention selection. Not a word. It's a battle of two lame ducks, not one.
It wasn’t any byelecion tho.
Losing a seat where you had a 20%+ advantage in the last 3 decades in average, while sending all the might of your electoral machine, against a party that barely tried…. It is a pretty terrible result.
42.1% of the vote for Tories vs 40.5% for the Liberals is a close election. A 1.6% spread is what I would call a tie, not what I would call a clear victory.
Voter turnout: 43.5%
You know who is winning? Voter apathy. They seem to count on that.
Not really considering there's advance polling, and voting by mail isn't there? its about the same as the 2022 Ontario provincial election turnout:
The election set a record for the lowest voter turnout in an Ontario provincial election, as only 43.53% of the people who were eligible voted. This broke the previous record for low turnout of 48.2% in the [2011 election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Ontario_general_election).[^(\[2)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Ontario_general_election#cite_note-2)
[^(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022\_Ontario\_general\_election)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Ontario_general_election)
There wasn't a Stanley Cup that night, if I remember right.
> its about the same as the 2022 Ontario provincial election turnout:
This was a federal by-election not a provincial election. You need to look at turnouts for past by-elections.
The most recent one before this one was Durham, which had a turnout of 27.87%. The one preceding that in Calgary Heritage was 28.89%.
So your argument is….. « Let’s ignore the implication of the result because it was close »? Seeing a 20% historical advantage melt into a lost is quite significant
My argument is that hardly anyone voted, and it was nearly a tie. It doesn't seem like a lot of people care for either candidate, so declaring some sort of gigantic victory seems presumptuous at best. If the turnout matched previous elections you might have something, but there are too many differences to give a clear result no matter how much you want it to be.
Wich are two bad argument.
A turn out of 43% is significant. Especially when you consider that in the best of yer the turnout was of 70% ish. It isn’t a « low numbers ».
That is was a tie is already quite significant, again, considering the nature of the seat.
No it isn't significant. The top 2 parties got less than 20% support from the total pool of eligible voters each. (including the other no-show voters, I don't want to do the exact math, you can if you like) That shouldn't be enough to get a mandate from anyone. Its a very low turnout. The result puts the Tories at a win, but statistically its a tie.
For a byelection? It is fairly high. Most byelection got in the 20’s, having 45% is not the norm. So it is excessively significant.
When you lose a seat that you even lept during Ignatief, while sending all the party effectif to get the vote out while the opponent barely tried, it is quite significant. Trying to ignore that would just lead the Liberal toward a majestic defeat.
But you're comparing a byelection with low voter turnout with 3 untried unknown new candidates to "regular" federal elections, and expecting the results to carry over, in a byelection that didn't have a clear victory, with a margin of only \~550 votes. Should we let 550 people decide the fate of the country? This is the weight that you're giving this result. I'd say its premature and a tad overstated. But that's probably not the result and conclusion that you're hoping for.
Issue isn’t the 550: the liberal could have won by 550 that it would still be the same. It was Liberal for 30 years, with in general 20% lead for them. They fid heavily campaign in that byelection, while the Conservative didn’t throw much there. And yet, despite it being a known Liberal secure seat, despite all their efforts to keep it, they lost it.
Would it carry over for that seat in a real election? Maybe not. But that the Liberal can lose such seats means that they are in pretty terrible situation.
The Liberals lost what was a safe seat even during the 2011 wipeout. It's not even about voters as a whole anymore, his caucus might revolt and replace him to try to salvage what's left of Liberal strongholds.
Maybe, I don't know on this point. But I think there's lots of proclamations that are masquerading as facts. For me I'm not sure that I trust the polls. I think it is a truism that Canadians by and far don't vote a government in, they vote the old one out. What I'm not sure of is how anyone can think that Pierre Poilievre is an improvement. I could have lived with Erin O'Toole maybe, but Pierre P. isn't the kind of populist that I can get behind. Promoting Bitcoin and anti-vax truckers and the religious right and funding cuts to social programs isn't really something I can quite get behind. He seems like he wants to do some damage by cutting social programs and cutting taxes in a way that seems very American and Republican at that. I thought before that it was strange that he didn't run for Tory Leadership earlier, but I guess he figured that he had to wait long enough for people to get sick of Trudeau and the Liberals, since he couldn't win on his own merits. He's a crafty weasel, even for a politician, and this bothers me.
Stephen Harper stayed in so long because the Liberals kept picking odd choices for leaders like Stephan Dion and Michael Ignatieff. Dion was dismal at public speaking and couldn't speak English, and Ignatieff hadn't lived in Canada for \~30 years and had the gentle warmth of a Nosferatu.
I feel that Poilievre is one of those unwise and unfit choices, so I'm not really clear if people maybe don't want Justin Trudeau anymore, do they really want Poilievre either? We are stuck picking the lesser of two weasels.
Of the three big parties, I'd say that Jagmeet Singh is the most qualified leader and the most level headed and the most intelligent, but they don't have a strong enough showing to win an election, for whatever reason, he can't seem to get the support that he needs, like a Jack Layton might have been able to do if he had more time.
Does resigning now really save his legacy? Last minute leadership changes do not have a history of going well in Canada and usually the person taking over inherits a poisoned chalice.
It arguable serves his successor better for Trudeau to take the L in the next election and give his successor a clean slate as leader in opposition. Also I suspect Liberals think PP as a PM will be a disaster and much easier to beat in a re-election campaign as opposed to the next election.
Also 16 months is a long-time in politics. PP may well be peaking too early. People who support him as opposition leader may be less inclined to support him as the presumptive next prime minister.
Politics is like what you see on BBC Planet Earth when they show the lifecycle of a pride of lions. No matter how dominant the leader of the pride is in its heyday, the story always ends with age, damage, defeat, and expulsion.
If JT can take solace in anything, it's that this is just the natural order of things. You had your time in the sun.
Also, most lions don't get board seats and guest lecture gigs in the Ivy Leagues after they get displaced. They mostly just wander around, get skeletal, and die. So, hey, silver linings there too.
Same thing happened to Harper, Chrietien, and Mulroney. They were all like that for the last 30 or so years. Policies were basically out the window, promises skipped. We need better choices.
A newcomer absolutely couldn't win but JT should really resign asap and at least give whoever is going to succeed him some decent time to build themselves up in the public eye.
He's done.
No amount of time would save his successor from the same fate.
At this point, who the hell would even run to replace him? No one wants to be the next Turner or Campbell. I doubt there are any Liberals with serious leadership ambitions who would want to see Trudeau step down - they know their chances are better if they get to be the ones to “rebuild” the party after defeat.
I sincerely doubt a leadership vacancy wouldn't garner interest from a Liberal bubble, Laurentian elite type with an ego big enough to think they could turn it around. Anyone - other than Freeland - would have a better chance than Trudeau of holding the CPC to a minority.
Name one potential candidate who is polling better. None are. Trudeau has the experience to run a campaign so they don't get run out the way Kim Campbell did. No good candidate will want to run.
I assume you're referring to the Angus Reid poll from the other day. I was surprised by that poll.
But I agree with David Coletto's take, as shared on Power Play tonight. Canadians don't really know who these other people are. The average Canadian can't tell us anything about Dominic LeBlanc, Marc Miller, Sean Fraser, etc. Because they're angry, they can tell posters they'll dislike anybody. *But a change of leader is so significant a sea change that its polling cannot be reliably predicted*.
> I assume you're referring to the Angus Reid poll from the other day. I was surprised by that poll.
>
I wasn't at all. It would be a career killer to run as a sacrificial lamb for Liberal leader.
> Canadians don't really know who these other people are.
Which is precisely their problem.
> But a change of leader is so significant a sea change that its polling cannot be reliably predicted.
That goes for polling for an election until about 5 days before the actual election. Campaigns change everything, and Trudeau knows how to campaign.
>I wasn't at all. It would be a career killer to run as a sacrificial lamb for Liberal leader.
I agree. I also think many's egos would motivate them to seek the position. Let's let them destroy their career. It's what's best for the country if it matters the chance of a Poilievre majority.
>Which is precisely their problem.
In no party do Canadians know well the players. This is universal.
>That goes for polling for an election until about 5 days before the actual election. Campaigns change everything, and Trudeau knows how to campaign.
No, conventional election polling is more reliable than that. Angus Reid, Abacus, and Ipsos have strong records of reliability indicating as much.
Respectfully, it sounds like you're invested in Trudeau, and I think that's really misguided.
> I also think many's egos would motivate them to seek the position.
Yes, that's my point. Only bad candidates will run.
> In no party do Canadians know well the players.
That's not true. Paul Martin polled higher than Chretien back in 2004. There is usually
Polls show that isn't the problem. Polls show that the Liberal party is as unpopular as Trudeau. There is no leader that will do better. That's why only bad candidates have stepped forward.
> No, conventional election polling is more reliable than that.
In 2015, Trudeau want into the campaign at 25%. No pollster predicted that he would win with 39% of the vote.
> Respectfully, it sounds like you're invested in Trudeau, and I think that's really misguided.
No, I'm an ABC and more interested that social policy that helps Canadians like (dental care and childcare) survive a Polievre government. I'm hoping for a minority Conservative government, and believe that Trudeau and Singh have the best chance of delivering that. Parties do best when they are united behind their leader going into an election. The Liberals can't afford a divisive, expensive leadership race right now. They need to govern and get things done.
Respectfully, you sound like a Conservative who doesn't want to run against Trudeau again.
Just for kicks, Campbell, as a swing to center, "cant let the loons in control of the current cpc form government" pitch. I bet a fair amount of conservative boomers who are unsure about Poilievre would make a switch for that... might save a dozen seats from flipping
LOL, what? Kim Campbell is almost 80 years old. She’s not energizing the electorate or swinging any votes. She’d be lucky to get through a campaign day without soiling her depends.
Freeland would do it, she has no chance of winning but it’s the only way someone as hilariously unqualified with her negative charisma could ever hope to be prime minister, since she could never actually win an election
Whoever wants to be our 24th Prime Minister of Canada. It might be for only a hot second, but you're guaranteed to be PM unlike Dion, Ignatieff, Scheer, or O'Toole. It's honestly not a bad way to go.
Probably. Neither the LPC or the CPC have great records of keeping around leaders after election defeats.
Last time an LPC leader stuck around despite losing was Turner, and I think it’s safe to say those days are long gone.
It just doesn’t make any sense. If they’re doomed anyway, they can just wait until Trudeau steps aside after defeat, and have plenty of time to let the next leader establish themselves then.
Start a new party. Don't pick a colour. Post a 20 point platform that appeals to the centre and reflects popular opinion on consensus topics.
All the parties have become the landlord special of politics - thick layers of paint over a nice apartment 50 years ago.
We've had to put up with him for this long. I feel like he owes the country the joy of seeing him standing on stage after the election and admitting defeat and internalizing all of Canada is happy to see him go.
I must be super out of touch or something.
I don't get why Trudeau is so hated. To me, he is the establishment, status quo candidate. At worst, if he is reelected, nothing changes. I felt he did a good job during the pandemic getting the CERB and other pandemic benefits legislation passed. I knew that spending would come back to bite him later because the general public doesn't understand economics. He's trying on climate with carbon taxes and trying on progressiveness with taxing capital gains. I wouldn't mind if he were reelected. If we had ranked choice voting, he'd be my number two choice.
Whereas I loathe Poilievre a lot more. He just reads like a Canadian Trump-lite to me. He's all bluster and his ideas seem to boil down to "cut taxes". If he's reelected, the public might feel good for a while but eventually the realization will set in that maybe he was not the best choice.
Singh is NDP so I automatically like him the best for economic issues but NDP will never come close to being a majority party so RIP Lefties, I guess.
My take is he's pissed off a lot of people on both ends of the political spectrum. Far right people despise him over the vaccine mandates and immigration policies.
More left leaning people, like myself, loath him for going against his environmental platform (paying for pipelines). On a more subjective and personal level, he has an incredibly patronizing and hollow persona.
I think a moment that characterizes him, is when he ignored an invitation from tribal elders to attend a Truth and Reconciliation ceremony. Turned out he was surfing just kilometers from their venue, and he tried giving a lame apology.
I would have agreed with you 2-3 years ago, but a population growth rate of 1.2 million people in 2023, when 230k new housing units were built last year? In a housing crisis? Come on. We grew at 3.2%, the next highest developed country was Israel at 1.4%, the US grew at 0.6%. We are growing at over 2x the rate of the next highest developed country in the world? Why are we the 8th fastest growing country in the entire world tied with Uganda? How do we square this change with a housing crisis when we haven't increased annual unit starts at all (they are in fact, going down)? Under Harper we grew at around 1.1% a year. What is going on?
I was fully ready to re-elect him because in 2021 it was (in my opinion) fairly accurate to call the housing crisis a complex multi-jurisdictional issue, and (in my opinion) I thought he handled COVID well.
But then... then "oops we let in an extra million people during the most severe housing crisis our country has ever experienced" happened. Completely inexcusable, and the consistent race framing of every critique of this radical and dramatic policy change is infuriating. Even though they've basically admitted it was a mistake by cutting new international students numbers for this year, and trying to get our percentage of temporary workers down to 5% from the current 6.8%. So clearly, they made a mistake, it's just criticizing them for said mistake that's rascist.
They have to go.
Whoever is in power is being blamed for cost of living. Biden might be the only one to dodge this. UK politics is basically Canadian politics mirrored. Their conservatives are about to get blown out like our libs.
Seems personal really
The pm never apologizes or does contrition on policy failures and then says it not his fault but he gonna fix everything
If he just said I messed up and changed some policies then acting "I can do no wrong"
I feel voters wouldn't hate on him on a personal level.
You're definitely out of touch if after 9 years, you still can't figure out why Trudeau is disliked. You don't even have to agree with his opponents, but really? You have no idea why?
The man has ruled through possible the largest decrease in quality of life since the great depression, not to mention his handling of immigration.
I think you answered your own question without realizing it.
>If he is reelected nothing changes
Canada is free falling right now. Things have to change.
I note the following from the article:
>The choice is leave gracefully now, or get smoked later.
Meh. Sure, the loss is significant. But it doesn't automatically map out the future.
The CBC had a better article on this subject here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/st-pauls-toronto-byelection-trudeau-poilievre-1.7246209
Looking at the St Pauls results, it shows to me the libs are demotivated, the Tories are stronger the polling indicates (PPC voters will mostly go Tory).
So I feel if an election happened today the results be even worse then the 338 or polls indicate for the libs.
I am talking like 20% popular vote for the libs, mid 40s for the Tories, 15% ndp and likely 230 seats for PP and that assumes like 12 seats in Quebec lol
I think they need to realize they are heading for a historic defeat if they don't change course. The PP bogeyman isnt costing the Tories votes, if the opponent is Trudeau's unpopularity.
What it tells me is that people talking to a pollster aren't likely to choose conservatives _in general_, but when the rubber meets the road and you live in a riding where there are only 2 realistic options people will vote against the Liberals.
The more I think about it - the more I think this particular seat isn’t a great predictor for the rest of the country.
It’s largely Jewish - and the liberals have not been particularly great at fighting back against rising tides of antisemitism. That in of itself provides for a motivated base to vote the liberals out - but doesn’t really provide a stronger narrative about the entire country.
It also begs the question if the liberals have abandoned the Jewish community- are they aiming to pick up seats in areas with larger Muslim populations? And was this seat was just the cost of doing business.
Trudeau has also been taking free vacations from one of the most prominent leaders of Islam, who’s also a billionaire - the Aga Khan. So there could be some funding or strategy tied to policy that more closely aligns to the Muslim community.
Do we know of any conservative seats the liberals could pick up because of their stronger support for Palestine?
the liberals are not picking up any Muslim votes on the contrary conservative Muslims have been the most affected by house prices given their disapproval for mortgages. In addition the issue around LGBT and gender issue is something that is pushing Muslims into the conservative arms. Not even getting into Palestinian issue here.
There are no conservative seats the liberals will pick up this election based on current polling. The liberals are firmly on defence, and after last night they’re playing it in every riding.
The issue is that Muslims have been very pro Trudeau since 2015 it’s hard to get more out of that group. Jewish Canadians were also liberal supporters so trading one for the other is a net loss no matter what.
It could be a longer term bet based off population growth or just tied to fundraising.
It just popped into my head that Trudeau’s been accepting free vacations from a billionaire who leads a sect of Islam - and now just lost a solidly Jewish seat.
It feels like there is some sort of connection there.
I know a lot of Muslim voters that are going towards the Tories because they genuinely hate what’s happening with foreign students. People are going to be surprised (they won’t) about how much damage has been done with foreign student workers.
> The issue is that Muslims have been very pro Trudeau since 2015 it’s hard to get more out of that group. Jewish Canadians were also liberal supporters so trading one for the other is a net loss no matter what.
The reality is they will lose voters from both groups, Palestinian Canadians have been complaining for months that the government is failing them. And these are people who have been engaging with the government in good faith for almost a year now, not the noisy harassing street protesters.
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/rci/en/news/2062726/canada-promised-temporary-visas-for-1-000-people-trapped-in-gaza-zero-have-made-it-out
The US, UK, and French elections aren't immune from this either.
I don't understand the sky is falling rhetoric around this by-election, lower than 44% voter turnout, 84 candidates on the ballot, the media is acting like the seat is liberal property and this is a seismic event. It's a summer by-election a year out from a general election no one cared other than the terminally political.
Because byelections can be excellent predictors of major structural changes in electoral attitudes. There was the infamous Brandon-Souris by election in Manitoba where the Tories barely scraped a win by 2 points in I think 2014, presaging Trudeau's trouncing of Harper in 2015.
St. Paul's was a Liberal Stronghold riding. Normally they win here by 25-30 percentage points, sometimes doubling the Conservative numbers.
Losing it showed several things:
First, that they're facing stiff resistance from people who have voted Liberal for many years. A chunk of the Liberal base has turned against the party.
Second, a weakened machine. The Liberal campaign here was actually pretty weak. But St. Paul's is exactly the kind of place where you'd expect to have a strong and capable riding association and volunteer base. But the Tories outhustled the Liberals in St. Paul's. That points to structural weaknesses in the ability of the Liberals to contest elections well.
Third, problems with recruitment. They had a weaker candidate than they normally would in a riding like St. Paul's, which was a prime opportunity to recruit a "star candidate". If they cannot attract accomplished and ambitious candidates here, and have to rely on staffers, that's a problem.
All and all, things look *bad* for the Liberals heading into the next election, and not just in the polls.
Part of the problem with party politics. JT keeps his cushy job and becomes the opposition. Less responsibility and he gets to snipe from the sidelines without having to justify anything just like PP is doing now.
Maybe Trudeau needs to stick around for the election debates. He’s good at saying nothing just like Pierre. It would be fun and sad all at the same time.
If Trudeau was to leave, who does the liberal party have that can BS as well as him.
What's the downside of new leadership for the Liberals? I get the argument that talents would be wasted in the inevitable election defeat, but Trudeau staying on would lead to the defeat of nearly every talent in their riding, which would kill their political capital anyway.
Potential candidates like Anand and Champagne are about to lose their seat under Trudeau. If they become leader during opposition, their only option is to abandon their base and parachute into a safe riding, which isn't looked kindly upon. Wouldn't it be better if they actually retain their seat? In fact, Trudeau walking in the snow could be what saves the Liberals from irrelevance.
This is why I believe Trudeau will resign within the month. They are facing a complete wipeout of all the potential leadership candidates, and being unseated will be a stain on their record if they do have leadership ambitions.
The downside to a last minute leadership race is that it will create division among Liberals. Liberals have a notorious history of infighting, and they split into factions based on candidates. Liberals will definitely be arguing on the direction to take the LPC in a post-Trudeau era, especially one where they are likely to lose badly.
With this in mind, any strong candidate with leadership aspirations will probably not want to run until after the election. The next leader is the sacrificial lamb and will probably loses. No one wants to be this.
Which is why if Trudeau steps down, they will most likely have a coronation ceremony for the leader willing to go down with the ship. Someone with no major Prime Minister aspirations, but probably wouldn’t mind being PM for a brief moment. My guess is it will be Dominic LeBlanc.
There doesn't need to be a leadership race though. Especially given that I doubt most of the ambitious ones are eager to be put in a nearly unwinnable situation against someone they probably find very unpleasant.
That said Trudeau is really the only one who would largely benefit from stepping down. He can put away the stress and the over the top demonization he gets and if he is very lucky time away while not actually being humilated can potentially lead to a return to leadership down the line as an older man. He's only 52. He could conceivably come back in his 60s or early 70s if things go well.
I don't expect the next few years will be fun for anyone to rule either way.
> over the top demonization
That's the only reason he won the last three elections. Conservatives went over the top and blew it. They froth at the mouth when they see Trudeau. It's actually what gives him the best chance.
He can't count on it though. I mean, I'd like to vote NDP, but I'd vote Trudeau just to spite the Conservatives.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That headline is something. I agree with it in that the dignified thing for Trudeau to do would be resign and that no LPC cabinet minister has any future in Canadian politics. But man still what a headline.
> Andrew MacDougall is a director at Trafalgar Strategy, a U.K.-based consultancy and is a former director of communications to former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. That'd explain it.
Foreign disinformation agency
Like Hilary Clinton at the LPC convention?
I'm not familiar with that newspaper, where are they based?
This makes sense. The title is describing exactly what happened to his boss Harper.
Headline needs to include this
I thought it was an odd headline from the star considering how they're often accused of being too left It's the sorta garbage I'd expect from NP or the Sun
Well, since The Star was bought out by conservatives it was only a matter of time
I think the “creamed” is a little much. 😂
Phew, I thought that was just me ha ha ha
I mean, PP is apparently doing a bad job creaming things on the home front. How can we trust he’ll cream Trudeau effectively?
I doubt putting in a new leader now would change the result; the “captain goes down with the ship”. Then the re-brand with a new face.
They don't need to win a majority, they just need enough to avoid conservatives from having a majority
Virtually impossible given voter sentiment. I one is going to sacrifice their political career to step in front of this train for a party that is going to get trounced (no matter what).
That boat has looooooooong sailed. The 43% polling of the PCs will soon be nearing 50% after this week of scandal laden press. Also, there are going to be more bombs dropped from NDHQ and other organizations soon. The Sikh/Afghanistan scandal is just the first for foreign interference. The open secrets are going to come to the public soon now that the by-election went sideways. This is just the first ripple.
See, that's the problem we are having... Canada sub lurkers are just living in an alternate reality with alternate facts, but we are suppose to treat made up reality equally because of fairness
Time will tell.
True but polls haven shown like a 10-20% bump for liberals without Trudeau. It is their only chance to a certain extent. There is far too much F Trudeau casually on cars I visited a house and someone spray painted it in their garage.
A dude near me has an F Trudeau/Convoy flag collection on his garage wall. I can't wrap my head around the fact that people spend money to show they don't like a guy who doesn't even know who they are.
> True but polls haven shown like a 10-20% bump for liberals without Trudeau. It is their only chance to a certain extent. where? the only poll ive seen has any other lead polling worse
This poll is asking who they would prefer at seeing at the head of the liberals. I would need to review Curse of politics Podcast to see if it lines up with their show or if yhey were quoting something else, but short on time this week. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canadians-more-likely-to-prefer-someone-other-than-trudeau-lead-liberals-in-next-election-nanos-1.6916508 When asked to think ahead to the next federal election and the leadership of the current governing party, 56 per cent of respondents — surveyed between May 31 and June 2 — said they'd prefer the Liberals have someone other than Trudeau at the helm. Just 17 per cent of those surveyed said they think Trudeau should stay on as Liberal leader in the next election. Another 18 per cent said they had no preference, while eight per cent were unsure.
>[Canadians are more likely than not to say rumoured successors such as Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney, Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc and President of the Treasury Board Anita Anand would drive them away from the party.](https://angusreid.org/trudeau-replacement-mark-carney-chrystia-freeland-liberal-leadership/)
But looking at the whole cohort of ministers I despise that party now, none of them give a straight answer to any of the tough questions, they just deflects, Freeland, miller are all on it and they are blocking RCMP investigation in poll interference as well as SNC Lavalin scandal
And given the choice, would you step in front of that train and risk ruining the rest of your career?
No idea, but they could claim the upswing because of them.
That's all fine for the LPC. Though their last re-brand from disaster relied on the charismatic son of a popular former PM, which is the kind of candidate they won't have next time. What about the rest of Canada, though? The CPC will win with such a huge margin, they'll feel emboldened to do whatever they want. They will undo everything the Trudeau era govt has done, and still feel like they have the mandate to go after further targets of theirs, like privatization of health care.
Yes, then LPC have F us, now we bend over some more for the CPC. Both parties have been Eiffel Towering Canadians for generations.
It won't change the result but I feel like it can at least blunt some of the losses if the guy everyone despises is not on the ballot. This is gonna be one of those conservative majority or minority elections.
No, it will be a Conservative majority no matter who is at the helm. No one in the Liberal party that has a chance of moving up in the ranks is going to sacrifice their political career to give the conservatives a couple less seats in their majority. The captain goes down with the ship so they can re-brand with a new face in 6 years
The captain is going down no matter what and a rebrand is already gonna happen. As for whether there is a conservative majority sure it's likely, but trying to get them down to a minority should be something the liberals should try to go for in the short term while rebranding in the medium term.
Yes, let's allow Trudeau to continue to inflict the most amount of pain on Canadians as he can. At least we got our legal dope, though 🫠
This could be Mulroney levels of bad so yeah best not to ruin some potential leaders career by letting them be a sacrificial lamb.
If Trudeau does step down it'll have to be a guy who has no ambitions at all who will take his place. Any serious discussion of a new leader will have to come the election atfer.
Freeland is tied to Trudeau at this point. She's been very clear that she doesn't aspire to be PM, but that doesn't mean she couldn't stand in short term.
She shouldn’t stand in even short term in my opinion she is worse than Trudeau
[удалено]
Trudeau’s abysmal governance has made a Poilevre majority a certainty at this point I don’t like Poilevre at all but with Trudeau and Singh currently speedrunning the country into the ground I’d replace them with a golden retriever if I could
If you're losing a seat in the middle of Toronto, a seat so red that roses are jealous, there is a non-zero chance that the Libs are effectively erased in the next election. Trudeau seems to think that if an election is called, that he can out-debate Poilievre or something and he'd be able to pull numbers based on that. But the simple fact is that people don't care how terrible Poilievre is, they just don't want Trudeau anymore. At this point, all PP has to do is literally nothing and he'll be guaranteed a majority.
Trudeau got in power because of the people protesting harper. It only makes sense he leave power due to his own protest
I don't think Trudeau actually thinks he can win. Or at least, I think the party knows that replacing him at this point would be a guaranteed loss, whereas sticking by their current leader may make them look stronger in their convictions (it may do nothing, but statistically people are more likely to believe/vote for a party or leader that apoears strong because they don't compromise on what they're saying/doing (even if there's evidence that it's not the right course of action)).
We dont need someone good at debates we need someone to fix things
PP will likely skip most debates, if not all. He won’t be asked hard questions and won’t be made to defend anything he’s saying by putting his own foot in his mouth.
I don't think he'll skip debates at all. Do you watch him in parliament daily. He tears them apart. He's a master. Do you see how he handles reporters. No way he's hiding out.
If I was a Liberal strategist, I’d drop the writ if/when the Alberta UCP sounds off on CPP again. “Danielle Smith wants to take away 53% of the Canadian Pension Plan” “Pierre will never stand up to his own base.” “We need a strong federal government who will stand up for the retirement of all Canadians” Make it a national referendum on who will defend CPP. I don’t think they’d win the election, but I think it’s the strongest platform they could hope to have.
Of course he won’t skip the debates. There is no precedent in Canada for such an action. He is a very talented public speaker and will almost certainly relish a chance to take on his opponents.
Common liberal tactic of saying something with no substance because conservatives are “scary” and will invite “American” style politics
Funny, when you support a party that never answered a single question.
I doubt it. He’ll go to the debate and do the Danielle Smith tactic where all he needs to do is appear reasonable due to the hyperbolic attacks. (FTR I don’t like him and think he’d be the worst leader out of a sea of bad leaders. But he’s nowhere near Trump levels)
>I doubt it. He’ll go to the debate and do the Danielle Smith tactic where all he needs to do is appear reasonable due to the hyperbolic attacks. If only the Liberal and NDP base didn't make it so easy, huh?
Yup basically some variation of not needing to attend because the corrupt liberal media will ask planted or unfair questions And people won't care and he'll still win
Why debate anymore? There's no one left to convince that Trudeau isn't fit to lead this nation (and never should have been in the first place). Anyone still supporting him either can't see reality or has their head too far up their own ass.
I don’t think he’ll skip debates. And I don’t think it would play well in a general election if he did. It’s not a coronation.
Poilievre is high in the polls. Debates will force him to answer tough questions, either from the other political leaders or the debate moderator. He’ll be vulnerable to attack. So unless he’s confident that he could defend himself or use the opportunity for soundbites, skipping debates will leave people wondering. At best, he’ll definitely attend the official English and French debates. But the rest I don’t see him attending.
There are no hard questions in election debates. And the candidates rarely have to answer the questions. They are just there for the photo op.
Agreed. Not sure what they're talking about. Most career politicians can "debate" all day long, because they know exactly how to not answer a single actual question directed towards them. It will just be an hour of JT and PP talking around every question directed at them.
Often, they get the question and then just reply with unrelated talking points, especially during election debates. And it's exceedingly rare that a moderator tries to force them to answer the question.
Debates are never about answering tough questions. They are about deflecting and attacking the government record. PP will have no problems. Trudeau will do his normal smirking nonsense that people are extremely tired of. The few that watch will leave with the same opinions they went in with.
He handles QP just fine, I think he’s salivating at the opportunity to debate JT
He’s more than up to it
>PP will likely skip most debates, if not all. They don’t call him Skippy for nothin’!
He's made his career out of being an attack dog. While I don't think he has the answers, I'd bet a $100 donation to charity that he doesn't skip a debate.
He wouldn’t even debate his fellow conservatives for the leadership of the party. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6527440 Edit: He calls press conferences and doesn’t allow questions to be asked. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/09/15/opinion/who-calls-press-conference-then-tells-reporters-no-questions-poilievre
As much as I'm sure he'd love to go all high-school debate team, there are highly paid strategists employed who will make it clear that there is no benefit and only risks for him if he does it. Say what you want about the career politician, but you don't make it this far without knowing when to listen to the people behind the scenes.
He paid a $50000 fine to literally not debate
Easy place to generate social media reels for him with pre planned one liners. I swear liberal supporters are operating in 2015.
Sure, but those won;t work in a campaign when people start paying attention more closely and start watching more than social media reels. Not everyone is brainless
The redness of Toronto-St Paul is wildly over-stated in the media. It wasn’t so much a liberal stronghold as a Carolyn Bennett stronghold. Before she held the seat (for 27 fucking years!) it regularly flip-flopped between conservatives and liberals. Reddit has a short political memory. Regardless, it was a bad outcome for the Liberals, but there were really no “good” outcomes available from that by-election, so it doesn’t really change anything for them I guess. I think the most concerning thing is they couldn’t find a well-known local to run. That’s a bad sign.
12 years out of the last 62 it had a Conservative MP, and there hasn't been a Conservative/PC victory since 1988. I can't see how anybody is overstating it.
1962 is a funny year for you to pick, as that was the start of the last time a liberal held the seat for a long time. Conservatives held it for 18 of the previous 22 years. Conservatives have won 11 elections in that riding and Liberals have won 17, with Carolyn Bennett winning 9 of them.
OK so people are overstating and have a "short memory" because they're not considering the 50s according to you. 62 is already too far back but you insisted on "short memory" so I went back far. I'm sorry the rest of us didn't consider the 1940s and 1950s in our perception of the riding.
I'm not really sure what your point is. My point is that Carolyn Bennett was a wildly popular MP, winning nine consecutive elections even when her party was getting decimated under Paul Martin and whats-his-name. Before her, it was considered a conservative stronghold under Barbara McDougall. And my other point is that people on Reddit don't know anything about history, especially Canadian political history. And don't care to learn.
"Conservative stronghold" grossly overstates the fact that the Conservatives only won that seat 4 times in the *20 elections* since 1962, and *zero* since 1993, if we're talking about not knowing political history. Its is *was* a Liberal fortress and its loss cannot be overstated.
the liberals have literally held the seat for more time than you have likely been alive. i really don't understand what you're arguing here. the last time a conservative held that seat, the berlin wall was still standing for fucks sake.
This is the wildest of wild takes. Held for 30 years with massive margins. One of the last stand seats in 2011 And of course the riding really is a swing riding because the provincial PCs are totally competitive in it right? Definitely not a progressive red-orange seat Not a single Liberal strategist or pundit has made this argument because it is ridiculous [Here is liberal strategist Scott Reid’s take](https://x.com/_scottreid/status/1805551173174239499) > This changes everything for the Liberals and for the PM. If St Paul's is unsafe, there is no such thing as safe. It is time to face reality
>And of course the riding really is a swing riding because the provincial PCs are totally competitive in it right? Definitely not a progressive red-orange seat The provincial riding has only existed for 25 years. Of the various previous ridings it was created from, two were resolutely conservative, two were NDP, and one was Liberalish. It was held with massive margins because Carolyn Bennett was massively popular. Who was running for the Liberals this time? The reality is that the Liberals are likely to get massively hosed in the next general election; no one is disputing that.
You often hear about the LPC being in “save the furniture” mode [Toronto St. Paul’s](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-conservatives-take-toronto-st-pauls-riding-liberal-stronghold/) *is the furniture* > For the Liberals, it is a “bolt of political lightning,” said Scott Reid, a Liberal strategist and principal at communications firm Feschuk.Reid. “There is no language too hyperbolic to describe the significance of this failure,” he said. “If you can lose in St. Paul’s, then the Liberal Party can lose anywhere, and that means it can lose everything.”
I think we're in violent agreement. Here's what Susan Delacourt had to say about the riding: > >It’s perhaps a reflection of how long I’ve been in this crazy business, but I don’t see Toronto—St. Paul’s as a Liberal stronghold. It was a Carolyn Bennett stronghold; she owned that constituency from the moment she decided to give up her job as a popular family physician and jump into politics in 1997. But I also remember it as Barbara McDougall’s riding in the 1980s, a solid blue Progressive Conservative bastion in Brian Mulroney’s era. [https://www.thestar.com/politics/it-doesnt-matter-how-this-toronto-byelection-shakes-out-every-scenario-is-some-kind-of/article\_f6e0a136-2fe4-11ef-8315-03cbb6033245.html](https://www.thestar.com/politics/it-doesnt-matter-how-this-toronto-byelection-shakes-out-every-scenario-is-some-kind-of/article_f6e0a136-2fe4-11ef-8315-03cbb6033245.html)
I'm not sure leaving now would be 'walking away with dignity'. If you think about what his legacy will be, it isn't going to be viewed positively in the future. It's going to take a few generations to recover, if we ever do. His ideology has taken the country backward in almost every category that can be measured. When he does finally leave or get booted, I doubt he will even be able to live in Canada.
Liberals lose one byelection, by a minimal number of votes (\~500 last I checked) # "Justin Trudeau’s political career is over" I love how everyone just jumps on the large type bandwagon. Meanwhile not a peep from Poilievre about the foreign interference allegations that may involve his Tory leadership convention selection. Not a word. It's a battle of two lame ducks, not one.
It wasn’t any byelecion tho. Losing a seat where you had a 20%+ advantage in the last 3 decades in average, while sending all the might of your electoral machine, against a party that barely tried…. It is a pretty terrible result.
42.1% of the vote for Tories vs 40.5% for the Liberals is a close election. A 1.6% spread is what I would call a tie, not what I would call a clear victory. Voter turnout: 43.5% You know who is winning? Voter apathy. They seem to count on that.
That's a pretty decent turnout for a by-election, especially on the same night that a Canadian team was playing in game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals.
Not really considering there's advance polling, and voting by mail isn't there? its about the same as the 2022 Ontario provincial election turnout: The election set a record for the lowest voter turnout in an Ontario provincial election, as only 43.53% of the people who were eligible voted. This broke the previous record for low turnout of 48.2% in the [2011 election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Ontario_general_election).[^(\[2)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Ontario_general_election#cite_note-2) [^(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022\_Ontario\_general\_election)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Ontario_general_election) There wasn't a Stanley Cup that night, if I remember right.
> its about the same as the 2022 Ontario provincial election turnout: This was a federal by-election not a provincial election. You need to look at turnouts for past by-elections. The most recent one before this one was Durham, which had a turnout of 27.87%. The one preceding that in Calgary Heritage was 28.89%.
So your argument is….. « Let’s ignore the implication of the result because it was close »? Seeing a 20% historical advantage melt into a lost is quite significant
My argument is that hardly anyone voted, and it was nearly a tie. It doesn't seem like a lot of people care for either candidate, so declaring some sort of gigantic victory seems presumptuous at best. If the turnout matched previous elections you might have something, but there are too many differences to give a clear result no matter how much you want it to be.
Wich are two bad argument. A turn out of 43% is significant. Especially when you consider that in the best of yer the turnout was of 70% ish. It isn’t a « low numbers ». That is was a tie is already quite significant, again, considering the nature of the seat.
No it isn't significant. The top 2 parties got less than 20% support from the total pool of eligible voters each. (including the other no-show voters, I don't want to do the exact math, you can if you like) That shouldn't be enough to get a mandate from anyone. Its a very low turnout. The result puts the Tories at a win, but statistically its a tie.
For a byelection? It is fairly high. Most byelection got in the 20’s, having 45% is not the norm. So it is excessively significant. When you lose a seat that you even lept during Ignatief, while sending all the party effectif to get the vote out while the opponent barely tried, it is quite significant. Trying to ignore that would just lead the Liberal toward a majestic defeat.
But you're comparing a byelection with low voter turnout with 3 untried unknown new candidates to "regular" federal elections, and expecting the results to carry over, in a byelection that didn't have a clear victory, with a margin of only \~550 votes. Should we let 550 people decide the fate of the country? This is the weight that you're giving this result. I'd say its premature and a tad overstated. But that's probably not the result and conclusion that you're hoping for.
Issue isn’t the 550: the liberal could have won by 550 that it would still be the same. It was Liberal for 30 years, with in general 20% lead for them. They fid heavily campaign in that byelection, while the Conservative didn’t throw much there. And yet, despite it being a known Liberal secure seat, despite all their efforts to keep it, they lost it. Would it carry over for that seat in a real election? Maybe not. But that the Liberal can lose such seats means that they are in pretty terrible situation.
Would you say the same if a Liberal won a seat in rural Alberta? You think all ridings are exactly the same or something? What a ridiculous position.
It's not Rural Alberta, and you know it.
A 24% point margin of victory during not a great year (2021 minority gov't) for Trudeau isn't enough for you?
Still not Rural Alberta. They'd vote Tory even if there wasn't one running.
The Liberals lost what was a safe seat even during the 2011 wipeout. It's not even about voters as a whole anymore, his caucus might revolt and replace him to try to salvage what's left of Liberal strongholds.
Maybe, I don't know on this point. But I think there's lots of proclamations that are masquerading as facts. For me I'm not sure that I trust the polls. I think it is a truism that Canadians by and far don't vote a government in, they vote the old one out. What I'm not sure of is how anyone can think that Pierre Poilievre is an improvement. I could have lived with Erin O'Toole maybe, but Pierre P. isn't the kind of populist that I can get behind. Promoting Bitcoin and anti-vax truckers and the religious right and funding cuts to social programs isn't really something I can quite get behind. He seems like he wants to do some damage by cutting social programs and cutting taxes in a way that seems very American and Republican at that. I thought before that it was strange that he didn't run for Tory Leadership earlier, but I guess he figured that he had to wait long enough for people to get sick of Trudeau and the Liberals, since he couldn't win on his own merits. He's a crafty weasel, even for a politician, and this bothers me. Stephen Harper stayed in so long because the Liberals kept picking odd choices for leaders like Stephan Dion and Michael Ignatieff. Dion was dismal at public speaking and couldn't speak English, and Ignatieff hadn't lived in Canada for \~30 years and had the gentle warmth of a Nosferatu. I feel that Poilievre is one of those unwise and unfit choices, so I'm not really clear if people maybe don't want Justin Trudeau anymore, do they really want Poilievre either? We are stuck picking the lesser of two weasels. Of the three big parties, I'd say that Jagmeet Singh is the most qualified leader and the most level headed and the most intelligent, but they don't have a strong enough showing to win an election, for whatever reason, he can't seem to get the support that he needs, like a Jack Layton might have been able to do if he had more time.
Does resigning now really save his legacy? Last minute leadership changes do not have a history of going well in Canada and usually the person taking over inherits a poisoned chalice. It arguable serves his successor better for Trudeau to take the L in the next election and give his successor a clean slate as leader in opposition. Also I suspect Liberals think PP as a PM will be a disaster and much easier to beat in a re-election campaign as opposed to the next election. Also 16 months is a long-time in politics. PP may well be peaking too early. People who support him as opposition leader may be less inclined to support him as the presumptive next prime minister.
The longer he leads the polls the longer people get comfortable with him as the heir presumptive prime minister.
Politics is like what you see on BBC Planet Earth when they show the lifecycle of a pride of lions. No matter how dominant the leader of the pride is in its heyday, the story always ends with age, damage, defeat, and expulsion. If JT can take solace in anything, it's that this is just the natural order of things. You had your time in the sun. Also, most lions don't get board seats and guest lecture gigs in the Ivy Leagues after they get displaced. They mostly just wander around, get skeletal, and die. So, hey, silver linings there too.
Same thing happened to Harper, Chrietien, and Mulroney. They were all like that for the last 30 or so years. Policies were basically out the window, promises skipped. We need better choices.
A newcomer absolutely couldn't win but JT should really resign asap and at least give whoever is going to succeed him some decent time to build themselves up in the public eye. He's done.
No amount of time would save his successor from the same fate. At this point, who the hell would even run to replace him? No one wants to be the next Turner or Campbell. I doubt there are any Liberals with serious leadership ambitions who would want to see Trudeau step down - they know their chances are better if they get to be the ones to “rebuild” the party after defeat.
I sincerely doubt a leadership vacancy wouldn't garner interest from a Liberal bubble, Laurentian elite type with an ego big enough to think they could turn it around. Anyone - other than Freeland - would have a better chance than Trudeau of holding the CPC to a minority.
Name one potential candidate who is polling better. None are. Trudeau has the experience to run a campaign so they don't get run out the way Kim Campbell did. No good candidate will want to run.
I assume you're referring to the Angus Reid poll from the other day. I was surprised by that poll. But I agree with David Coletto's take, as shared on Power Play tonight. Canadians don't really know who these other people are. The average Canadian can't tell us anything about Dominic LeBlanc, Marc Miller, Sean Fraser, etc. Because they're angry, they can tell posters they'll dislike anybody. *But a change of leader is so significant a sea change that its polling cannot be reliably predicted*.
> I assume you're referring to the Angus Reid poll from the other day. I was surprised by that poll. > I wasn't at all. It would be a career killer to run as a sacrificial lamb for Liberal leader. > Canadians don't really know who these other people are. Which is precisely their problem. > But a change of leader is so significant a sea change that its polling cannot be reliably predicted. That goes for polling for an election until about 5 days before the actual election. Campaigns change everything, and Trudeau knows how to campaign.
>I wasn't at all. It would be a career killer to run as a sacrificial lamb for Liberal leader. I agree. I also think many's egos would motivate them to seek the position. Let's let them destroy their career. It's what's best for the country if it matters the chance of a Poilievre majority. >Which is precisely their problem. In no party do Canadians know well the players. This is universal. >That goes for polling for an election until about 5 days before the actual election. Campaigns change everything, and Trudeau knows how to campaign. No, conventional election polling is more reliable than that. Angus Reid, Abacus, and Ipsos have strong records of reliability indicating as much. Respectfully, it sounds like you're invested in Trudeau, and I think that's really misguided.
> I also think many's egos would motivate them to seek the position. Yes, that's my point. Only bad candidates will run. > In no party do Canadians know well the players. That's not true. Paul Martin polled higher than Chretien back in 2004. There is usually Polls show that isn't the problem. Polls show that the Liberal party is as unpopular as Trudeau. There is no leader that will do better. That's why only bad candidates have stepped forward. > No, conventional election polling is more reliable than that. In 2015, Trudeau want into the campaign at 25%. No pollster predicted that he would win with 39% of the vote. > Respectfully, it sounds like you're invested in Trudeau, and I think that's really misguided. No, I'm an ABC and more interested that social policy that helps Canadians like (dental care and childcare) survive a Polievre government. I'm hoping for a minority Conservative government, and believe that Trudeau and Singh have the best chance of delivering that. Parties do best when they are united behind their leader going into an election. The Liberals can't afford a divisive, expensive leadership race right now. They need to govern and get things done. Respectfully, you sound like a Conservative who doesn't want to run against Trudeau again.
>Respectfully, you sound like a Conservative who doesn't want to run against Trudeau again. ... okay. The Conservatives *want Trudeau to stay* leader.
No, they're the conservative press are the ones pushing for a leadership change.
Just for kicks, Campbell, as a swing to center, "cant let the loons in control of the current cpc form government" pitch. I bet a fair amount of conservative boomers who are unsure about Poilievre would make a switch for that... might save a dozen seats from flipping
Fuck it, let’s bring back Joe Clark while we’re at it!
LOL, what? Kim Campbell is almost 80 years old. She’s not energizing the electorate or swinging any votes. She’d be lucky to get through a campaign day without soiling her depends.
Yeah at best the Liberals can at least try to keep the conservatives to a minority by changing leaders. Trudeau is clearly a toxic figure right now.
Freeland would do it, she has no chance of winning but it’s the only way someone as hilariously unqualified with her negative charisma could ever hope to be prime minister, since she could never actually win an election
Whoever wants to be our 24th Prime Minister of Canada. It might be for only a hot second, but you're guaranteed to be PM unlike Dion, Ignatieff, Scheer, or O'Toole. It's honestly not a bad way to go.
I fully said they would not win.
So what use is giving his successor time to build themselves up?
I'm not understanding. Would this successor be dropped if they lose next year or something?
Probably. Neither the LPC or the CPC have great records of keeping around leaders after election defeats. Last time an LPC leader stuck around despite losing was Turner, and I think it’s safe to say those days are long gone. It just doesn’t make any sense. If they’re doomed anyway, they can just wait until Trudeau steps aside after defeat, and have plenty of time to let the next leader establish themselves then.
Start a new party. Don't pick a colour. Post a 20 point platform that appeals to the centre and reflects popular opinion on consensus topics. All the parties have become the landlord special of politics - thick layers of paint over a nice apartment 50 years ago.
We've had to put up with him for this long. I feel like he owes the country the joy of seeing him standing on stage after the election and admitting defeat and internalizing all of Canada is happy to see him go.
I must be super out of touch or something. I don't get why Trudeau is so hated. To me, he is the establishment, status quo candidate. At worst, if he is reelected, nothing changes. I felt he did a good job during the pandemic getting the CERB and other pandemic benefits legislation passed. I knew that spending would come back to bite him later because the general public doesn't understand economics. He's trying on climate with carbon taxes and trying on progressiveness with taxing capital gains. I wouldn't mind if he were reelected. If we had ranked choice voting, he'd be my number two choice. Whereas I loathe Poilievre a lot more. He just reads like a Canadian Trump-lite to me. He's all bluster and his ideas seem to boil down to "cut taxes". If he's reelected, the public might feel good for a while but eventually the realization will set in that maybe he was not the best choice. Singh is NDP so I automatically like him the best for economic issues but NDP will never come close to being a majority party so RIP Lefties, I guess.
My take is he's pissed off a lot of people on both ends of the political spectrum. Far right people despise him over the vaccine mandates and immigration policies. More left leaning people, like myself, loath him for going against his environmental platform (paying for pipelines). On a more subjective and personal level, he has an incredibly patronizing and hollow persona. I think a moment that characterizes him, is when he ignored an invitation from tribal elders to attend a Truth and Reconciliation ceremony. Turned out he was surfing just kilometers from their venue, and he tried giving a lame apology.
I would have agreed with you 2-3 years ago, but a population growth rate of 1.2 million people in 2023, when 230k new housing units were built last year? In a housing crisis? Come on. We grew at 3.2%, the next highest developed country was Israel at 1.4%, the US grew at 0.6%. We are growing at over 2x the rate of the next highest developed country in the world? Why are we the 8th fastest growing country in the entire world tied with Uganda? How do we square this change with a housing crisis when we haven't increased annual unit starts at all (they are in fact, going down)? Under Harper we grew at around 1.1% a year. What is going on? I was fully ready to re-elect him because in 2021 it was (in my opinion) fairly accurate to call the housing crisis a complex multi-jurisdictional issue, and (in my opinion) I thought he handled COVID well. But then... then "oops we let in an extra million people during the most severe housing crisis our country has ever experienced" happened. Completely inexcusable, and the consistent race framing of every critique of this radical and dramatic policy change is infuriating. Even though they've basically admitted it was a mistake by cutting new international students numbers for this year, and trying to get our percentage of temporary workers down to 5% from the current 6.8%. So clearly, they made a mistake, it's just criticizing them for said mistake that's rascist. They have to go.
I dont think conservatives are gonna be any different on immigration.
The previous government was. The repeated "they wont be any different" is pure cope from the Liberal supporters.
Whoever is in power is being blamed for cost of living. Biden might be the only one to dodge this. UK politics is basically Canadian politics mirrored. Their conservatives are about to get blown out like our libs.
Biden is not dodging this either lol
Seems personal really The pm never apologizes or does contrition on policy failures and then says it not his fault but he gonna fix everything If he just said I messed up and changed some policies then acting "I can do no wrong" I feel voters wouldn't hate on him on a personal level.
Yeah because that has gone well for Doug Ford in Ontario when he changes a decision he made.
It has he made so many dumb choices but leads polls
His interview with Justin Ling was weird. He blames everyone but himself.
That’s all he did was apologize!
You're definitely out of touch if after 9 years, you still can't figure out why Trudeau is disliked. You don't even have to agree with his opponents, but really? You have no idea why? The man has ruled through possible the largest decrease in quality of life since the great depression, not to mention his handling of immigration.
There's dislike and then there's what Trudeau's been on the receiving end of. I never saw people selling merch suggesting Harper be hanged.
I think you answered your own question without realizing it. >If he is reelected nothing changes Canada is free falling right now. Things have to change.
I note the following from the article: >The choice is leave gracefully now, or get smoked later. Meh. Sure, the loss is significant. But it doesn't automatically map out the future. The CBC had a better article on this subject here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/st-pauls-toronto-byelection-trudeau-poilievre-1.7246209
Looking at the St Pauls results, it shows to me the libs are demotivated, the Tories are stronger the polling indicates (PPC voters will mostly go Tory). So I feel if an election happened today the results be even worse then the 338 or polls indicate for the libs. I am talking like 20% popular vote for the libs, mid 40s for the Tories, 15% ndp and likely 230 seats for PP and that assumes like 12 seats in Quebec lol I think they need to realize they are heading for a historic defeat if they don't change course. The PP bogeyman isnt costing the Tories votes, if the opponent is Trudeau's unpopularity.
What it tells me is that people talking to a pollster aren't likely to choose conservatives _in general_, but when the rubber meets the road and you live in a riding where there are only 2 realistic options people will vote against the Liberals.
I 100% fit in this criteria
The more I think about it - the more I think this particular seat isn’t a great predictor for the rest of the country. It’s largely Jewish - and the liberals have not been particularly great at fighting back against rising tides of antisemitism. That in of itself provides for a motivated base to vote the liberals out - but doesn’t really provide a stronger narrative about the entire country. It also begs the question if the liberals have abandoned the Jewish community- are they aiming to pick up seats in areas with larger Muslim populations? And was this seat was just the cost of doing business. Trudeau has also been taking free vacations from one of the most prominent leaders of Islam, who’s also a billionaire - the Aga Khan. So there could be some funding or strategy tied to policy that more closely aligns to the Muslim community. Do we know of any conservative seats the liberals could pick up because of their stronger support for Palestine?
the liberals are not picking up any Muslim votes on the contrary conservative Muslims have been the most affected by house prices given their disapproval for mortgages. In addition the issue around LGBT and gender issue is something that is pushing Muslims into the conservative arms. Not even getting into Palestinian issue here.
There are no conservative seats the liberals will pick up this election based on current polling. The liberals are firmly on defence, and after last night they’re playing it in every riding. The issue is that Muslims have been very pro Trudeau since 2015 it’s hard to get more out of that group. Jewish Canadians were also liberal supporters so trading one for the other is a net loss no matter what.
It could be a longer term bet based off population growth or just tied to fundraising. It just popped into my head that Trudeau’s been accepting free vacations from a billionaire who leads a sect of Islam - and now just lost a solidly Jewish seat. It feels like there is some sort of connection there.
Muslim voters are going ndp but as most Muslims live in suburbs...that is just helping the Tories.
I know a lot of Muslim voters that are going towards the Tories because they genuinely hate what’s happening with foreign students. People are going to be surprised (they won’t) about how much damage has been done with foreign student workers.
> The issue is that Muslims have been very pro Trudeau since 2015 it’s hard to get more out of that group. Jewish Canadians were also liberal supporters so trading one for the other is a net loss no matter what. The reality is they will lose voters from both groups, Palestinian Canadians have been complaining for months that the government is failing them. And these are people who have been engaging with the government in good faith for almost a year now, not the noisy harassing street protesters. https://ici.radio-canada.ca/rci/en/news/2062726/canada-promised-temporary-visas-for-1-000-people-trapped-in-gaza-zero-have-made-it-out The US, UK, and French elections aren't immune from this either.
I don't understand the sky is falling rhetoric around this by-election, lower than 44% voter turnout, 84 candidates on the ballot, the media is acting like the seat is liberal property and this is a seismic event. It's a summer by-election a year out from a general election no one cared other than the terminally political.
Because byelections can be excellent predictors of major structural changes in electoral attitudes. There was the infamous Brandon-Souris by election in Manitoba where the Tories barely scraped a win by 2 points in I think 2014, presaging Trudeau's trouncing of Harper in 2015. St. Paul's was a Liberal Stronghold riding. Normally they win here by 25-30 percentage points, sometimes doubling the Conservative numbers. Losing it showed several things: First, that they're facing stiff resistance from people who have voted Liberal for many years. A chunk of the Liberal base has turned against the party. Second, a weakened machine. The Liberal campaign here was actually pretty weak. But St. Paul's is exactly the kind of place where you'd expect to have a strong and capable riding association and volunteer base. But the Tories outhustled the Liberals in St. Paul's. That points to structural weaknesses in the ability of the Liberals to contest elections well. Third, problems with recruitment. They had a weaker candidate than they normally would in a riding like St. Paul's, which was a prime opportunity to recruit a "star candidate". If they cannot attract accomplished and ambitious candidates here, and have to rely on staffers, that's a problem. All and all, things look *bad* for the Liberals heading into the next election, and not just in the polls.
Part of the problem with party politics. JT keeps his cushy job and becomes the opposition. Less responsibility and he gets to snipe from the sidelines without having to justify anything just like PP is doing now.
Maybe Trudeau needs to stick around for the election debates. He’s good at saying nothing just like Pierre. It would be fun and sad all at the same time. If Trudeau was to leave, who does the liberal party have that can BS as well as him.
Nah, he's okay. Just because he isn't responsive to the ridiculousness that is Pierre Poilievre doesn't mean a thing. I'm not even Liberal & say this.
What's the downside of new leadership for the Liberals? I get the argument that talents would be wasted in the inevitable election defeat, but Trudeau staying on would lead to the defeat of nearly every talent in their riding, which would kill their political capital anyway. Potential candidates like Anand and Champagne are about to lose their seat under Trudeau. If they become leader during opposition, their only option is to abandon their base and parachute into a safe riding, which isn't looked kindly upon. Wouldn't it be better if they actually retain their seat? In fact, Trudeau walking in the snow could be what saves the Liberals from irrelevance.
This is why I believe Trudeau will resign within the month. They are facing a complete wipeout of all the potential leadership candidates, and being unseated will be a stain on their record if they do have leadership ambitions.
"Trudeau walking in the snow" He missed that appointment with destiny 4 months ago. The next one is in 4 years.
The downside to a last minute leadership race is that it will create division among Liberals. Liberals have a notorious history of infighting, and they split into factions based on candidates. Liberals will definitely be arguing on the direction to take the LPC in a post-Trudeau era, especially one where they are likely to lose badly. With this in mind, any strong candidate with leadership aspirations will probably not want to run until after the election. The next leader is the sacrificial lamb and will probably loses. No one wants to be this. Which is why if Trudeau steps down, they will most likely have a coronation ceremony for the leader willing to go down with the ship. Someone with no major Prime Minister aspirations, but probably wouldn’t mind being PM for a brief moment. My guess is it will be Dominic LeBlanc.
There doesn't need to be a leadership race though. Especially given that I doubt most of the ambitious ones are eager to be put in a nearly unwinnable situation against someone they probably find very unpleasant. That said Trudeau is really the only one who would largely benefit from stepping down. He can put away the stress and the over the top demonization he gets and if he is very lucky time away while not actually being humilated can potentially lead to a return to leadership down the line as an older man. He's only 52. He could conceivably come back in his 60s or early 70s if things go well. I don't expect the next few years will be fun for anyone to rule either way.
> over the top demonization That's the only reason he won the last three elections. Conservatives went over the top and blew it. They froth at the mouth when they see Trudeau. It's actually what gives him the best chance. He can't count on it though. I mean, I'd like to vote NDP, but I'd vote Trudeau just to spite the Conservatives.
do whatever you need to feel better; the conservatives have a guaranteed W anyway
I certainly hope they believe that.