Experts in the media and politics would have us believe that they possess a knowledge and experience that gives them an insight into politics and political strategy that the average citizen does not. This sounds reasonable until we remember how often they are wrong (2016 anyone?). I will not claim to be an expert in political attacks as my mother unfortunately raised me to be too polite (sigh, thanks mom). What I can claim however, is the ability to analyze data, think logically, and come to a rational conclusion. These are skills that we all possess in varying degrees and which I believe are useful when examining the effectiveness of a political campaign.
I have frequently taken issue with the bias, lack of honesty, laziness, and manipulation displayed by the media. This is not one of those times. Instead, I find myself disagreeing with the assessment of Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s strategy as argued by CTV News contributor Don Martin in his piece entitled: Don Martin: Poilievre picking wrong fights as Liberals struggle under low morale, support. Among other things, Martin argues that:
He should not have attacked Trudeau for being away from the Commons for four of five days this month as “nobody cares in the real world.”
That, in the wake of standing ovation for a Nazi, insisted that the PM should have ordered a background check prior to the visit is wrong as “it isn’t within the PMO’s responsibility.”
Highlighted the billion-dollar spending cut aimed at the military as “a travesty for the under-armed forces, which will unhinge furious allies viewing Canada as a defense freeloader.”
Attacked the government’s amended competition bill which was “released without adequate consultation” and which is “now attracting the ire of business leaders who warn it will scare away investment and actually reduce competition”
Martin argues that Poilievre should instead:
Continue to focus on the affordability issues faced by Canadians including inflation and housing.
Be nicer.
I do not completely disagree with Martin. I think cutting 1 billion from defense spending after sending 8 billion in aid to Ukraine is, in his words, “a travesty” and that the governments “competition bill” will do more harm than good as government overreach always does. However, I do take issue with the broader “picking the wrong fights” narrative for a few reasons.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
My issue here is that you don’t change your strategy when you’re winning. Pretty simple really. Over the last few months, the Conservatives have pulled ahead in the polls.
By Undermedia - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=114547795
This is reflected in both the popular vote and seat projections.
Voters are fickle so it goes without saying that these should be monitored closely.
“Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake.”
As this quote was by Napoleon and was in reference to battle, it should be modified for politics to read “Never stop pointing out an opponent’s missteps.” If there is a danger here it is that, when it comes to Liberal missteps, the Conservatives are faced with what is almost an embarrassment of riches. Every step the Liberals take seems to be onto a rake. They’ve mismanaged the economy, done nothing regarding housing, and engaged in a litany of scandals with seemingly no repercussions. Until recently it seems. That’s good for the Conservatives, but if they’re not careful they’ll start acting like a dog seeing squirrel, distracted by the newest topic and at risk of diluting the message. They need to stay focused which means they need to stay on strategy.
Image isn’t everything.
I’ve written a series of articles on this topic and so won’t go into detail again.
What I will say though is that while it is important not to come across as “a tiny-fisted ball of hate” as Martin so eloquently puts it, the number of major problems that the country now faces means “likeability” may be less of an issue than it was at one time. It is probable that voters are less likely to vote for the guy they’d have a beer with than they did in 2015 when voting on image got us into this mess. Keep attacking, but don’t make it personal.
“Perfect is the enemy of good.”
It doesn’t matter what Poilievre, or the Conservatives do, they’re not getting 338 seats or 100% of the popular vote. In fact, the last time one party received over 50% of the vote was in 1984 and before that it was 1958 so it’s rare but possible. Currently 338 Canada puts the Conservatives at 39% of the vote and 178 seats. Is another 11% of the vote a legitimate goal? Possibly, but where would they come from? Each party has what I’ll refer to as a soft and hard floor. A certain percentage of the electorate remain stubbornly loyal to their party of choice. The soft floor consists of voters who remain loyal to their party absent significant scandals and the hard floor is the percentage who remain loyal no matter what. Here’s my take on the soft floors of the major parties projected to lose seats in the next election:
Liberals – 26.2%
NDP – 15.7%
The hard floor is tougher to call. When the old Progressive Party of Canada imploded following the Brian Mulroney years, the party received only 16% of the vote, but that was due in part to an emergence of the Reform party which stole some of the PC support. Reform peeled away some of the NDP’s western support as well resulting in the NDP only receiving 6.9% of the vote. I’m inclined to say that, in the absence of a new party and any real NDP scandal that they are unlikely to fall below 15.7% of the vote. They currently sit at about 18% +/- 3% so it is quite possible that they’ve fallen as far as they’re likely too. The hard floor for the Liberals is harder to determine as they’ve never imploded to the extent that the PCs did. Given the myriad problems facing the country and the seemingly endless string of scandals, it is not impossible for the Liberals to hit their hard floor which I’m inclined to set at 16% as well. They are currently sitting at 29% +/-3%, or very near their soft floor, meaning only a scandal or the emergence of a party competing for their voters will further reduce their support. It is possible that the ongoing Liberal scandals could further erode Liberal support but there is no guarantee these voters would run into the arms of the Conservatives. Regardless, Poilievre’s strategy of attacking the Liberals seems to be the best way to highlight these issues and convince more voters to turn elsewhere.
A couple of caveats:
1. The goal is seats, not popular vote.
2. Canada is a big country and despite the kumbaya message that were all Canadians, we don’t all view our problems the same way or agree on the same solutions.
Taken together, these two cautions mean that Poilievre and the Conservatives need to tailor their message to where they can pick up seats which invariably will mean that some other locations will not like the message and consequently will not be convinced to vote Conservative.
Conclusion
Don Martin is entitled to his opinion and while he has a few good points, I don’t agree Poilievre is picking the wrong fights or that the strategy needs to be changed. At the moment. The next election could be as much as 2 years away. That’s plenty of time for things to change and overconfidence can be a killer. For the time being though, it appears that Poilievre’s strategy is winning. My advice? Keep your eyes on the polls, don’t interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake, and if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.