Why impatience may be Pierre Poilievre’s only path to victory

Instead, Poilievre’s opportunity lies in changing the frame through which his leadership itself is evaluated. Right now, Carney benefits from a leadership frame rooted in reassurance. In an age of precarity, when people feel economically exposed, geopolitically anxious, and unsure about the future, Carney projects competence and risk management. He does not promise transformation so much as stability. For many voters, especially those who are older, asset-owning, or risk-averse, that is enough. The preferred prime minister question rewards that orientation. It asks Canadians to imagine who they want at the helm of the ship in uncertain waters. Carney fits that image naturally. I think Poilievre will always lose to Carney when leadership is framed this way. But leadership can be framed differently. It can be about urgency rather than reassurance, or impatience rather than steadiness. For a large segment of Canadians, especially for those who are younger and locked out of homeownership, economic security, and upward mobility, their dominant emotion is not fear. It is frustration. Life feels stalled. Systems feel rigged. Political and economic progress feels slow or non-existent. These voters are not looking for a caretaker. They are looking for someone who is as fed up as they are. This is where Poilievre’s political instincts have always been strongest. His sharpness, his relentlessness, his refusal to let issues go. These traits are liabilities when interpreted as negativity or anger. However, they can become assets when interpreted as impatience on behalf of others. The task, then, is reframing. Poilievre does not need to convince voters he is the nicest person in the room. He needs to convince them that he is unwilling to accept the status quo, that delays are unacceptable, and that incrementalism is a luxury Canadians can no longer afford. His message should not be “trust me” but “I am as done with this as you are.” If he survives his leadership review at the end of January, I think this reframing should be Poilievre’s central strategic objective. That means shifting away from a singular focus on grievance and toward a clearer articulation of urgency It means connecting every critique to the lived experience of delay, waiting, and falling behind. Waiting to see a doctor. Waiting to afford a home. Waiting for wages to catch up. Waiting for government to finally move. In this frame, leadership is not about being liked or reassured. It is about being restless. If Poilievre can move the public conversation toward the latter, his favourability ceiling becomes less relevant. Now it’s one thing to signal impatience and restlessness. But it’s another to have policy ideas and an alternative agenda to offer up, especially when Carney has so effectively crowded out much of the conservative policy agenda. Poilievre will need something on the policy menu that validates the vibe, but without the shift in frame, it will be hard to compete with Carney on his terms. Preferred prime minister numbers matter, but they are not destiny. They reflect the questions voters are implicitly answering: “Who do I want to manage things as they are?” versus “Who do I trust to push hard for change?” Most Canadians will likely never love Pierre Poilievre. But many might be willing to vote for someone who seems as genuinely impatient as they are for their lives to get better.