How Canada's Conservatives threw away a 27-point lead to lose again
Conservatives in Canada are trading blame for Monday night's election loss, showing that Pierre Poilievre will need to heal divisions within the movement as he fights to stay on as leader.
As a clear Liberal win was emerging on election night, Conservative candidates and their supporters had one question: What the heck just happened?
The party had lost a remarkable 27-point lead in opinion polls and failed to win an election for the fourth time in a row.
And while it gained seats and earned almost 42% of the popular vote - its highest share since the party was founded in 2003 - its leader Poilievre was voted out of the seat he had held for the past 20 years.
"Nobody's happy about that," Shakir Chambers, a Conservative strategist and vice-president of Ontario-based consultancy firm the Oyster Group, told the BBC.
The party is now trying to work out how it will move forward.
At the top of the agenda will be finding a way for the Conservatives to perform their duties as the Official Opposition - the second-place party in Canada's parliament whose job is to hold the sitting government to account - without their leader in the House.
Ahead of a caucus meeting next Tuesday to discuss this, Poilievre announced on Friday his plan to run in an Alberta constituency special election to win back a seat.
That special election will be triggered by the resignation of Conservative MP-elect Damien Kurek, who said he will voluntarily step down to let Poilievre back in after what he called "a remarkable national campaign".
"An unstoppable movement has grown under his leadership, and I know we need Pierre fighting in the House of Commons," Kurek said in a statement.
Unlike the US, federal politicians in Canada do not have to live in the city or province they run in. Poilievre grew up in Alberta, however, and will likely win handily as the constituency he is running in is a Conservative stronghold.
A big question is whether Poilievre still has the backing of his own party to stay on as leader. Mr Chambers said the answer, so far, is a resounding yes.
"Pierre has a lot of support in the caucus," he said. "I don't think there's anybody that wants him removed, or that has super high ambitions that wants to replace him as leader."
A number of high-profile Conservatives have already rallied behind him. One of them is Andrew Scheer, a current MP and former leader of the party, who said Poilievre should stay on to "ensure we finish the job next time".
Others are casting blame on where they went wrong.
Jamil Jivani, who won his own constituency in a suburb of Toronto handily, felt that Ontario leader Doug Ford had betrayed the conservative movement and cost the party the election.
The federal and provincial Conservative parties are legally different entities, though they belong to the same ideological tent, and Ford is leader of Ontario's Progressive Conservative Party.
He frequently made headlines during the election campaign for his get-tough attitude with Donald Trump and the US president's trade war.
"He couldn't stay out of our business," Jivani told a CBC reporter.
Jivani, who in a past life attended Yale University with US Vice-President JD Vance, where the two became good friends, accused Ford of distracting from the federal Conservatives' campaign and of "positioning himself as some political genius that we need to be taking cues from".
But Mr Chambers, the Conservative strategist, said that Poilievre will also need to confront where the party fell short.
Poilievre, who is known for his combative political style, has struggled with being unlikeable among the general Canadian public.
He has also failed to shore up the support of popular Conservative leaders in some provinces, like Ontario's Ford, who did not campaign for Poilievre despite his recent landslide victory in a provincial election earlier this year. Ford did, however, post a photo of him and Liberal leader Mark Carney having a coffee.
"Last time I checked, Pierre Poilievre never came out in our election," Ford told reporters earlier this week. "Matter of fact, he or one of his lieutenants told every one of his members, 'don't you dare go out and help'".
"Isn't that ironic?"
Another Conservative premier, Tim Houston of Nova Scotia - who also did not campaign for Poilievre - said the federal party needs to do some "soul-searching" after its loss.
"I think the Conservative Party of Canada was very good at pushing people away, not so good at pulling people in," Houston said.
Not every premier stood on the sidelines. Poilievre was endorsed by Alberta's Danielle Smith and Saskatchewan's Scott Moe, both western Conservatives.
Kory Teneycke, Ford's campaign manager, who publicly criticised Poilievre's campaign during the election, angering federal Conservatives, rejected the notion that Ford's failure to endorse Poilievre had cost him the election.
He told the BBC that, to him, the bigger problem was Poilievre's failure to unite Conservative voters in Canada.
"What constitutes a Conservative in different parts of the country can look quite different," he said, adding that Poilievre's populist rhetoric and aggressive style appealed to Conservatives in the west, but alienated those in the east.
"There was a lot of Trump mimicry in terms of how they presented the campaign," Mr Teneycke said.
"Donald Trump is public enemy number one to most in Canada, and I don't think it was coming across very well."
He added he believes some of the "soul-searching" by Poilievre's Conservatives will need to include a plan of how to build a coalition of the right in a country "as big and diverse as Canada".
Asked by reporters what it would take to heal the rift, Ford answered: "All they have to do is make a phone call."
Why young voters flocked to Canada's Conservatives
'Build, baby, build': Five things Carney has pledged to do as Canadian PM
How Canada voted - in charts
The blunt-speaking Canadian taking his fight with Trump to Washington
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Catastrophic': Rural public media stations brace for GOP cuts
Public media stations around the country are anxiously awaiting the results of Thursday's House vote that could claw back $1.1 billion from public broadcasting, with leaders warning that the cuts present an existential crisis for public media's future. For smaller stations — many of which are in rural parts of the country — the funding makes up critical chunks of their yearly operating budgets. Many of them are being forced to plan how they'll survive the cuts, if they can at all, public media executives say. Local leaders say the cuts would not only deprive their audiences of news and educational programming, but could also lead to a breakdown of the emergency broadcast message infrastructure that is critical for communities with less reliable internet or cellular service. 'That would mean an almost immediate disappearance of almost half our operating budget,' David Gordon, executive director of KEET in Eureka, California, said of the rescission proposal. 'Assuming [KEET] would continue, it would be in a very, very different form than it is right now.' The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that distributes federal money to public media stations via grants, said about 45 percent of public radio and TV stations it provided grants to in 2023 are in rural areas. Nearly half of those rural stations relied on CPB funding for 25 percent or more of their revenue. But that funding is being targeted for a vote as part of a push from President Donald Trump that also aims to cut $8.3 billion in foreign aid. The rescissions package would cut CPB funding already approved by Congress for the next two fiscal years. The proposal, which only needs approval from a simple majority, must pass both chambers of Congress within 45 legislative days from the day it's introduced. The House is set to vote on Thursday. If the House and Senate follow their current schedules, the deadline to vote on the cuts is July 18. If the deadline passes and Congress has not approved the cuts, the White House will be required to spend the money — but funding could still be cut in future budgets. If approved, the package would codify a series of cuts first picked out by the Department of Government Efficiency earlier this year. Both Trump and Elon Musk, former head of DOGE, have repeatedly accused NPR and PBS of bias against Republicans. In 2023, the Musk-owned social media site X labeled NPR as "state-affiliated media," falsely suggesting the organization produces propaganda. Trump regularly suggested cutting federal funding for public media during his first term. But his second term has brought increased hostility to mainstream media outlets, including the Associated Press, Voice of America, ABC News and CBS News. Approximately 19 percent of NPR member stations count on CPB funding for at least 30 percent of their revenue — a level at which stations would be unlikely to make up if Congress approves the rescissions, according to an NPR spokesperson. Ed Ulman, CEO of Alaska Public Media, predicts over a third of public media stations in Alaska alone would be forced to shut down 'within three to six months' if their federal funding disappears. PBS CEO Paula Kerger said in an interview she expects 'a couple dozen stations' to have 'significant' funding problems 'in the very near term' without federal funding. And she believes more could be in long-term jeopardy even if they survive the immediate aftermath of the cuts. 'A number of [stations] are hesitant to say it publicly,' she said. 'I know that some of our stations are very, very worried about the fact that they might be able to keep it pieced together for a short period of time. But for them, it will be existential.' Smaller stations with high dependency on federal funding may be forced into hard choices about where to make cuts. Some stations are considering cutting some of what little full-time staff they have, or canceling some of the NPR and PBS programming they pay to air. Phil Meyer, CEO of Southern Oregon PBS in Medford, Oregon, said his station will have to get creative just to stay afloat. 'If we eliminated all our staff, it still wouldn't save us enough money,' Meyer said. 'It becomes an existential scenario planning exercise where, if that funding does go away, we would have to look at a different way of doing business.' Some rural stations are worried they won't be able to cover the costs to maintain the satellite and broadcast infrastructure used to relay emergency broadcast messages without the federal grants. In remote areas without reliable broadband or internet coverage, public media stations can be the only way for residents to get natural disaster warnings or hear information about evacuation routes. After Hurricane Helene devastated Western North Carolina last year, leaving the region without electricity for days, Blue Ridge Public Radio in Asheville, North Carolina, provided vital information on road closure and access to drinking water for people using battery-powered and hand-cranked radios. 'I think it's pretty catastrophic,' Sherece Lamke, president and general manager of Pioneer PBS in Granite Falls, Minnesota, said of the potential consequences of losing the 30 percent of her station's budget supplied by CPB. Station managers around the country have made direct pleas to their home congressional delegations in the past year, urging them to protect public broadcasting from the rescission proposal and publicly opposing Trump's executive order calling on CPB to stop providing funding to stations. PBS, NPR and some local stations have sued the Trump administration to block the order. Brian Duggan, general manager of KUNR Public Radio in Reno, Nevada, said he's optimistic about the chances of the House voting down the funding cuts, particularly after talking with his local member of Congress, Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), who co-signed a statement opposing cuts to public media on Monday. 'I maintain optimism … based on my conversations with the congressman,' Duggan said. 'I will just hold out hope to see what happens ultimately on the House floor.' Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, whose public media stations are among the most dependent on federal grants in the country, told POLITICO on Wednesday she's concerned about stations in her state and is trying to get the package changed. In the wake of Trump administration pressure, some stations have seen an uptick in grassroots donations. But while larger stations in well-populated metro areas have broader, wealthier donor bases to draw on for additional support, many rural stations can only expect so much help from their community. Some of the stations in rural areas are forced to navigate the added complication of asking for donations from Republican voters as Trump rails against the public media ecosystem. 'We live in a very purple district up here,' Sarah Bignall, CEO and general manager of KAXE in Grand Rapids, Minnesota said. 'If we started kind of doing the push and the fundraising efforts that were done in the Twin Cities, it would be very off-putting to a lot of our listeners.' Increases in donations, sponsors and state funding — only some states fund public broadcasting, and other states are pushing their own cuts to public broadcasting — would be unlikely to cover the full loss of smaller stations with heavy dependence on federal grants. 'It's not like we can just go, you know, 'Let's find a million dollars somewhere else.'' Lamke said. 'If we knew how to do that, we would have.' Longtime public media employees have experience in managing the lack of certainty that comes with the nonprofit funding model. But some said that the federal cuts, along with the White House effort to eliminate the public media model, have made forecasting the future of their stations more difficult than ever. 'I think this is the biggest risk that we've had, certainly in the time that I've been in public broadcasting,' Kruger said. 'And I've been in this business 30 years.' Calen Razor contributed to this report.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why ‘Hellcats' could be the answer to Democrats troubles
When Rep. Mikie Sherrill won the New Jersey gubernatorial primary on Tuesday, the 'Hellcats' group chat of aspiring female congresswomen lit up in celebration. All four women in the "Hellcats" chat — named after the first female Marines who served in World War I — have military experience and are running for Congress in 2026. Sherrill, as a former Navy helicopter pilot, offers some much-needed inspiration for the party's next generation of candidates. Democrats, looking to turn around their struggling brand and retake the House in 2026, point to Sherrill and presumptive Virginia Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger, a former congresswoman and CIA officer, as reasons the party will do well. Sherril and Spanberger are held up as the model for how the party might turn the tables — running moderate, former veterans and national security officials in tough districts who can say they 'have put their country ahead of their party,' said Dan Sena, who served as the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2018. 'Candidates with records of service showed in 2018 their ability to win in the most challenging districts and states in the country,' Sena added. 'This cycle, the same dynamics are playing out with those kinds of candidates.' Democrats say these House candidates can point to their political aspirations as an extension of their public service that began in the military or national security realm, and bristle at Republicans claiming MAGA is equivalent to patriotism. 'Right now, especially as this administration continues to create more chaos and dismantle our democracy, you're seeing veterans continuing to answer the call to serve their country,' said JoAnna Mendoza, a retired US Marine who served in combat, now running to challenge Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.). Mendoza is a member of the 'Hellcats' group chat, along with Rebecca Bennett, a former Navy officer who is taking on Rep. Tom Kean (R-N.J.), Maura Sullivan, a former Marine looking to replace Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) and Cait Conley, an Army veteran and former National Security Council official, who is up against Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.). Democrats say these candidates bring in necessary enthusiasm that translates to fundraising. In Pennsylvania, Ryan Croswell, a Marine and federal prosecutor who resigned when President Donald Trump pressured him to drop charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, raised more than $215,000 in the first 48 hours after announcing his campaign on Monday, one of the biggest launch hauls that the party has seen this cycle. Spanberger posted a selfie on X just minutes after her one-time Washington roommate Sherrill won her primary race in New Jersey on Tuesday. The pair is using their profiles as a springboard to higher office, after many of them helped Democrats flip the House in 2018. In Michigan, former CIA analyst Sen. Elissa Slotkin fought off GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, himself an Army veteran, in a state that Kamala Harris lost in 2024. New Jersey Sen. Andy Kim, a former Department of State adviser on Afghanistan, easily won his election for the seat once held by former Sen. Bob Menendez, who was convicted of federal corruption charges. 'Patriotism is a value that the Democrats shouldn't be afraid to talk about,' said Jared Leopold, a former communications director for the Democratic Governors Association. 'It is a productive conversation for Democrats to lead on as an entry point to the kitchen table issues of the day.' Democratic candidates with national security backgrounds mitigate one of the party's biggest liabilities — a perception that Democrats are weak. Democratic-run focus groups held after the 2024 election found voters across the spectrum saw the party as overly focused on the elite and too cautious. Voters regularly cite Republicans as the party they trust with national security issues in public polling, and the GOP bench of veterans elected to office runs deep. But serving in the military or for the administration in a national security capacity 'inoculates them from attacks that they're not tough,' said Amanda Litman, co-founder of Run For Something, a group that recruits young people to run for office. 'It helps them ward off that opposition without having to say it out loud,' Litman continued. 'Former Navy helicopter pilot, prosecutor — those are inherently tough, so that means women candidates don't have to posture, they can just be, because it's baked into their resumes.' Of course, Republicans have, at times, effectively turned it against them. Former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, for instance, highlighted his military experience but also faced "swift boat" attacks. More recently, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's military record came under scrutiny when he was elevated to the vice presidential nomination. Bennett, who is also a current member of the Air National Guard, believes her dual identity as a veteran and mother gives her a unique appeal to voters, and a natural way to discuss financial strains like high daycare costs. 'I truly led in some of the most challenging environments that exist in this world,' she said. 'And, I'm a mom too, and I fundamentally understand the issues and challenges that families are facing.'
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The White House Wants the Megabill by July 4. For Real.
House and Senate Republicans spent Thursday at each other's throats over President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' The sparring between the two chambers reached a point where members were openly scoffing at the GOP's self-imposed July 4 deadline for passing the bill. Down Pennsylvania Avenue, meanwhile, the White House isn't sweating. In fact, Trump's aides are downright bullish about getting the megabill wrapped up in a bow for a presidential signature by Independence Day. 'We are targeting the week of July 4 for final passage,' said one of two Trump administration officials I spoke to Wednesday and granted anonymity to candidly describe the private talks. Let's be clear: The timeline is extraordinarily fast. Not only does Senate Majority Leader John Thune have to find a way to bridge competing demands inside his conference and weather a grueling amendment 'vote-a-rama,' but he also has to work with Speaker Mike Johnson, who is already groaning at every change being entertained for the bill that barely passed his chamber last month. Traditionally, getting the two chambers aligned on a single piece of complicated legislation means weeks of 'conferencing' — that's what happened in 2017, the last time Republicans pursued a party-line tax bill. This time, the legislation is even more complicated and the margins even thinner. But White House officials are adamant that GOP leaders skip that step. Nor do they want the House making more changes after the Senate, requiring another 'pingpong' back across the Rotunda. They expect the Senate to clear a bill that the House can simply plop on the floor, pass and send to Trump's desk. 'There's not going to be a pingpong or a conference,' the official told me yesterday. Can they really do that in just three weeks? Some Republicans are skeptical, to say the least. Sen. John Curtis of Utah said 'a lot of us would be surprised' if the July 4 deadline holds at the POLITICO Energy Summit Tuesday. And during a Punchbowl News event Wednesday, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said that while the Senate might be able to finish on time, it could take another month to negotiate with the House. 'The Senate is going to do what it damn well wants to do,' he said. OK, senator: Go tell that to Donald Trump. Some of the president's allies on the Hill are already dreaming up a snazzy Rose Garden celebration to ring in both Independence Day and the enactment of the 'big, beautiful bill.' (At least that's what one well-placed GOP congressional aide predicted to me this week.) The recent history of the megabill is fueling the administration's confidence. Political prognosticators scoffed at Johnson's self-imposed Memorial Day target for House passage, predicting the warring factions in his conference would make that deadline an impossibility. But Trump swooped in and muscled the bill through by sheer force, strong-arming moderate holdouts and bringing conservatives to heel. And White House officials are sure he can do it again. Administration aides are well aware of the work left to be done. Senate Republicans are already moving to throw a major wrench in the negotiations by upending two key provisions that were essential to winning the support of rival blocs in the House. Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo told his colleagues Wednesday he plans to deliver on a personal priority that's highly desired by members of his panel: making key business tax breaks permanent. To do it, he's ready to scale back the House's $40,000 cap on the state-and-local-tax deduction — a key factor in winning the support of blue-state GOP holdouts. And to manage desires elsewhere in the Senate GOP, Crapo also hinted he'll elongate the phase-out time for some clean-energy tax breaks enacted under former President Joe Biden — a huge no-no for House Freedom Caucus members, who made their quick repeal a must in exchange for their votes. That means Trump is about to find himself in a familiar spot — playing referee between the chambers — and his team knows it. He could start blowing the whistle as soon as Thursday, when he meets with Thune and Crapo at the White House. There's good reason to think that Trump will ultimately be able to impose his will on the unruly GOP lawmakers. There were signs he was already doing so this week, after rumblings emerged about some Senate Republicans wanting to scale back Trump's tax priorities in order to pay for the business tax provisions. Trump's campaign pledges to exempt tips, overtime pay and Social Security from income taxes made it into the House bill at a cost of $230 billion, according to a Joint Committee on Taxation score. Scrapping or scaling back any of those provisions could have been a huge boon to Senate tax writers. But the White House made clear behind the scenes that would be a no-go: 'We're not willing to entertain any scaling back of our signature promises,' a second Trump administration official said. 'You're not going to rock the president's commitments to the voters to pay for [business] expensing in the out years.' On Tuesday, Thune made it clear to reporters that Trump's priorities would stay — words the White House welcomed. So don't expect much stomach inside the GOP for bucking Trump's wishes over the coming weeks. It's telling that, as I was told, none of the Senate Finance Republicans who met with Trump last week raised the issue of shrinking his tax wish list during their White House skull session. That just underscores how no one — not even senators who get six-year terms and have historically relished their independence — wants to tell the most powerful man in the world: Please, Mr. President, we'd like to water down your campaign promises to substitute one of our own. 'I think ultimately a lot of members are wish-casting different structures to permit more of their own priorities, and certainly that's something that senators are welcome to do,' the first official said. But 'the president's priorities are not negotiable in this process.'
