As we come to the end of the first week of this high‐stakes, highly consequential Canadian general election campaign, many Conservative supporters—and a fair number of commentators—have been urging Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party to dramatically pivot.
Their argument is straightforward: with Donald Trump ramping up threats against Canada, it seems logical for the Conservatives to seize the moment, confront Trump head‐on, and persuade anxious voters that they are best positioned to stand up for Canada. Yet when you examine the data closely, it becomes clear that such a pivot is likely not the smart strategic choice. Campaigns, especially in their early stages, are about establishing a path to victory, and in this case, shifting the focus to Trump could, in fact, undermine the Conservatives’ remaining paths to victory.
Now that doesn’t mean the Conservatives shouldn’t strive to become less Trumpy. For the life of me, I can’t understand why their candidates are talking about the World Economic Forum or the Century Initiative. Any poll will tell you (and I’ve done one) that most Canadians have no idea what any of that means. In politics, the subjects you choose to focus on matter at least as much as what you choose to say about them. Even if some of these issues continue to motivate some of the most hardcore supporters in the conservative base, at this stage Poilievre does not have the luxury of worrying about his right flank. Each time the Conservatives step outside of the mainstream, they end up confusing, if not outright alienating, otherwise accessible voters.
And alienating accessible voters is not something the Conservative Party can afford. As I’ve argued many times in the past, my polling data at Abacus Data never signalled there was a deep public affection for Poilievre. In 2024, when it looked like he was headed for a potentially historic victory, I described it as a “loveless landslide.” Instead, what bound voters to Poilievre was the skill with which he prosecuted a case for change against the deeply unpopular Justin Trudeau.
Trump’s tariffs have not only reset the set of issues that are driving public opinion, but they have also reset the qualities that Canadians are looking for in a leader. Today, Canadians aren’t looking for a flashy trial lawyer to litigate the case for change against a broken status quo. Instead, they want a steady hand of a skilled physician who is committed to comforting you while guiding your family through a serious illness. This is where Carney has parked his message, and it is working.
With the above noted, not all the news is bad for the Conservatives. For one thing, there remains a broad and deep desire among Canadians for a change in government. Our most recent survey, completed on March 27, indicates that 54 percent of Canadians say they “definitely want a change.” That’s down from 57 percent at the start of the campaign, but still high enough to find an audience. That figure alone is striking: over half the electorate is predisposed to replace the current government.
Since Carney called this snap election for April 28—an outcome that didn’t seem likely at the end of 2024—the Liberal Party has enjoyed a rapid rise in public support but not at the expense of Canadians’ desire for change. For Poilievre and the Conservatives, that underlying appetite is a formidable resource.
What is different now is that Canadians are increasingly parking their desire for change behind their anxiety about the Trump threat. On this count, public opinion is shifting at an extraordinary speed. A month ago when we asked Canadians what was issue was more important in determining their vote they told us they chose “Which party is best able to bring about change and avoid a fourth Liberal term” over “which party is best able to deal with Donald Trump’s threats to Canada?” the desire for change won out by a 56 percent to 44 percent margin. Today, those numbers have flipped with 56 percent of Canadians saying that it is Trump’s threat driving their vote versus only 44 percent who still tell us it is their desire for change.
Redefining the ballot question
Forget about party brands for a moment, and it is clear that, even though we are only at the end of week one, it’s undeniable that handling the Trump threat has momentum to become the defining ballot question. That’s not helpful to the Poilievre campaign at all.
So, if all of that is true, doesn’t it make sense for the Conservatives to pivot and try to outflank the Liberals on the Trump question? After all, it is front‐page news, Canadians are focused on it, and Trump will only continue to insert himself with continued threats, new tariffs, and far more.
No necessarily. With the caveat that there rarely are easy answers for a party whose electoral standing is slipping, there are clear signs in the data that by abandoning their campaign for change and focusing on countering Trump, the Conservatives might actually further worsen their standing with the electorate.
Let’s start with the uncomfortable reality that fully one in four Conservative supporters actually likes Trump. This, in no way, should be read as a reflection of Poilievre’s own views about the president but, instead, as a force that limits his tactical options. Should Poilievre go all‐out in condemning Trump, he risks alienating that chunk of his party’s base. If even a small portion of these pro‐Trump Conservatives sit out the election or defect to Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party, the Conservatives’ margin for victory vanishes.
Perhaps worse, most Canadians think Poilievre would have voted for Trump if he could have. Fairly or not, Poilievre has to contend with this deep perceptual problem. The more he talks about Trump, the more he reinforces a brand liability that only hurts him among voters.
Moreover, any significant escalation of Trump’s threats—such as the reciprocal tariffs he has hinted at imposing on April 2—will generate further anxiety among Canadians. My colleague Eddie Sheppard and I wrote recently that when exhibiting a more intense precarity mindset, they are more likely to vote Liberal. Stoking that fear by engaging in a protracted slugfest over Trump might give the Liberals an even stronger foothold among voters who are unsure which party can best safeguard Canada’s interests. And right now, Carney is winning on that measure. Changing people’s minds requires a herculean effort to reframe Poilievre. Can they out Carney, Carney?
Never fight on your opponent’s battlefield
Then there is the strategic dimension illuminated by Sun Tzu’s cautionary principle: never fight on your opponent’s battlefield. Already, the Liberals, with Carney now leading the charge, have positioned themselves as the party that will stand up to Trump. In his speech after asking the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and call an election, Prime Minister Carney even mentioned the need to “fight the Americans.”
If the Conservatives concede that this election is primarily about Trump, they let the Liberals dictate the terms of engagement on the ground where the Conservatives are at a serious disadvantage. In our polling, among the 56 percent of Canadians who say Trump is the main issue driving their vote, the Liberals enjoy a roughly 25‐point lead over the Conservatives. That is an enormous gap to overcome.
So, to me, the real battle in front of the Conservatives is not about finding a way to win on the Trump issue as opposed to convincing Canadians that Trump is not the only issue. The numbers back this case up. Among voters who believe the central question is about change—specifically, avoiding a fourth term of a Liberal government—the Conservatives lead by about 30 points. Hence, if “Is it time for a change?” becomes the campaign’s defining question or a least co-defining question alongside the Trump threat, the Conservatives will be the clear beneficiaries. And we already know that a majority of Canadians (54 percent) want a change in government.
With that kind of underlying sentiment, concentrating on change remains a powerful motivator that could rally Conservative voters and potentially sway the large share of swing voters open to an alternative. Just because tapping into that sentiment has not paid dividends for Poilievre yet does not mean that it will not in the future. It certainly represents a better bet than challenging Carney on his own ground.
If I’m Poilievre, I’m looking for ways to adjust my message as opposed to abandoning it. And I do this against a backdrop that, ultimately, whatever strategic choices I make might not make a difference.
Structural challenges remain
This is because the Conservatives’ biggest structural challenge in this election remains the potential unraveling of the Bloc Québécois in Quebec, along with the steady erosion of support for the New Democratic Party in the rest of Canada.
The combination of Trump tariffs and the timing of the Trudeau-Carney leadership succession has created a partisan dream scenario for the Liberals in which the progressive vote has collapsed behind a Liberal leader otherwise widely perceived as a centrist. The NDP and the Bloc do not have distinct or compelling messages on the Trump question, leaving those parties vulnerable to losing votes. The extent to which Canadian progressives either split their vote or unite behind the Liberal party has been a defining feature of Canadian elections in the 21st century. In fact, should the Canadian Left continue to unite behind Carney, it is conceivable that the Conservatives could win as much as 40 percent of the vote and still lose the election.
Sometimes politics comes down to choosing the least bad option in front of you and hoping to catch a break that may not come at all. Ontario just finished a cautionary case study in this regard. Doug Ford ran on the slogan “Protect Ontario,” directly referencing the danger of U.S. tariffs and adopting an “Ontario First” perspective. That strategy was authentic to Ford’s brand, and it resonated. The Ontario PC campaign essentially dared their Liberal and NDP opponents to make the election about anything else. That those parties tried and failed to return attention to issues like government ethics or health care is not necessarily an indictment of the decision to try in the first place.
Looking at our numbers from that election, I struggle to see a situation in which either Ontario opposition party could have even attempted to out-Ford Ford on the subject of who could better stand up to the president without facing an even larger electoral defeat.
The hill Poilievre has to climb is not as steep as the one that faced Ford’s opponents. But the challenge in front of him is real. We can continue to expect Carney’s Liberals to continue to hold the advantage on the Trump issue. Carney’s history as a former central banker gives him immediate credibility on economic and financial questions, and he is already framing the election around resisting American aggression. When we poll those Canadians who say the best party to confront Trump is the deciding factor, the Liberals have a decisive lead.
While the Conservatives cannot afford to be seen ignoring the Trump issue, there is likely no path to victory for them in focusing on it. And, from a purely electoral standpoint, why should they when they have such a clear alternative—promoting the “time for a change” narrative.
There’s a lot of campaign left
It can feel counterintuitive, especially at the end of a first week filled with headlines about Trump, to resist pivoting to the issue dominating the airwaves. Yet campaigns are about probability. You pick the issues where you have the strongest advantage and the greatest chance to shape the electorate’s mind. The “change” narrative remains strong—again, 54 percent of Canadians say they want a different direction. Despite Trump’s bluster and bombast, that underlying dynamic has not vanished. Indeed, if the Conservatives can keep it in the spotlight, they are far more likely to marshal enough votes to prevail.
Of course, it is still only the first week. Things can change in an instant—Trump’s tariffs, a big misstep from Carney, or some unforeseen development might shake the electorate’s priorities once again. But the broad outlines that will define the race are becoming clear.
Ultimately, there’s no good option for the Conservatives. The headwinds they face are serious, and the Liberal advantage is real. But public opinion has not completely abandoned them and there remains a realistic and plausible path to electoral success. Instead of changing direction, Poilievre needs to change the conversation, and the extent to which he can succeed in doing so bears watching during the remainder of this campaign.
