THE BLUE AND WHITE

Numbers should suggest that this election would be a coronation for Pierre Poilievre. But it’s not.

Typically, some numbers track closely with how people vote in the election. For example, how many people want change? Or, another example: what issues do people care the most about? 56% of people prioritize change over dealing with Donald Trump, and the most important issue to voters, while previously being US-Canada relations, has now shifted back to affordability. Pierre Poilievre is the obvious vote for change and based his entire campaign upon promises to improve the economy and make life more affordable for the average Canadian. Why isn’t he winning then? 

The explanations for this are somewhat complicated.

One, it has to be acknowledged that those numbers are leading to the Conservatives at its highest support level since 2012, at slightly less than 40%. The problem is, even if Poilievre is talking about the right things, his approval rating is quite bad, with 36% approving and almost 60% disapproving. For context, his approval rating is worse than Trump’s in the US! Many reasons can be given, from voters perceiving Poilievre to be too right wing because he echoes Trump’s anti-woke rhetoric, to his relative lack of experience compared to Carney’s two decades managing central banks. The end result is that it is easy for Mark Carney to use Poilievre’s negative appeal to convert former NDP, Green, and Bloc voters and hard for Poilievre to build a big tent coalition.

Two, Poilievre is not winning enough on the issues he is winning on. Even though he’s convinced the majority of voters who want change to vote for him, some voters are willing to settle for Mark Carney as change. After all, Mark Carney is not Justin Trudeau, and he has already reversed some of the least popular Trudeau-era policies, such as the consumer carbon tax. The graph from Abacus illustrates this perfectly: even though slightly more people care about political change and Poilievre is winning there, he is only winning by 26% while Carney is winning by 41% in the second-most important issue in the election. The graph also tells us that the Liberals have a rock-solid support base of voters who care about US-Canada relations. To win, Poilievre has to widen his margin on voters who care about affordability and political change, while narrowing Carney’smargins on Trump and other issues.

Source: Abacus Data

It’s not election day, and Poilievre may still win tomorrow. But I hope my analysis helps you in understanding the immediate pre-election political situation here in Canada and why Carney is currently the favourite to win.

A divide is opening up between men and women.

As part of a global trend, men and women are increasingly voting for different parties. Some polls show that there is a 20-30 point difference between how Canadian men and women vote, with men generally favouring the Conservatives and women favouring the Liberals. Newspapers across the political spectrum from the Toronto Star to the National Post have run articles about this phenomenon. This will be very concerning if the gap widens in the next election, but I’m not in the business of predicting the far future. I am more curious about why this happens, and hence have provided two hypotheses that are not necessarily true, but are supported by research. 

The first hypothesis is that the rise of the Internet has amplified existing divides among men and women. The ability for people to self-select into echo chambers causes less socialization between different groups of people and less shared experiences. This causes existing biases to be reinforced because there is no voice of dissent. Content creators then exploit this to appeal to specific groups and drive political views further apart. Content creators I’m talking about here are those in the manosphere like Andrew Tate and male-oriented podcasters like Joe Rogan (arguably he is also a part of the manosphere). >80% of viewership for both of them are men, especially young men, and it was through appealing to this group of content creators that Trump won the young men vote in 2024. In a nutshell: echo chambers cause polarization because men and women are isolated from each other.

The very obvious missing information in the first hypothesis is why those existing divides exist. This brings in my second hypothesis. This is very much a hypothesis: I’m unsure how true this is, but it concurs with the views of some researchers on gender, such as 2025 WAC speaker Michael Kaufman, and is very much worth researching. Here it goes. Traditional gender roles expect men to be the breadwinner and to project an aura of power. Just like how gender roles shape society’s expectation of women, so does it shape society’s expectation of men and our self-perception. Traditional gender roles very much still affect society, don’t get that part wrong. 

On the first part about being the breadwinner: in terms of politics, this translates into prioritizing the economy much more than other issues, because being able to earn money and be a homeowner is central to the identity of the average Joe. Other issues, such as social justice and Trump, are comparably deprioritized. The average Jane obviously cares about affordability too, but there are additional concerns relating to women’s rights and social justice in general which is also of central concern. What is the Pierre Poilievre campaign’s central message? It’s to make Canada more affordable. Perfect for the average Joe. Is feminism and social justice Poilievre’s strong suit though? Probably not.

On the second part, about projecting power. Two conclusions derived from this. First, this is why Pierre Poilievre’s speaking style is a part of his appeal, because in his apple-eating Trudeau-bashing prime, Pierre Poilievre projects charisma. My debate coach told me to watch some of his speeches in order to improve my own style. If you know me, it was horrible to start, and still isn’t great, so maybe that’s good advice. Because he projects power, he appeals to men. Second, there is a common narrative which frames “woke” social movements (such as feminism) as going too far and disenfranchising men. Exactly how and whether this is even true is up to dispute, but what isn’t up to dispute is that a lot of men are afraid of losing power and are part of a backlash against those movements. What is the word Poilievre likes to bash the most, apart from Trudeau? “Woke”. The appeal is evident. By contrast, a lot of women are afraid that anti-woke is a dog whistle for taking away things such as abortion rights, and anti-woke puts them off rather than appeals to them.

I’m generalizing a lot here, so know that I’m not trying to. You as a UCC student may differ significantly from the average Joe and a lot of women voted and will vote Conservative this election. But I hope you had fun reading the two observations I had. Even if you don’t believe my hypotheses are correct, I still hope it made you think.