Let's Talk Politics

Ep 16: Election Pulse - Unpacking Canada's Divided Vote

• Julia Pennella • Season 1 • Episode 16

Share episode

Send us a text

The political landscape is shifting rapidly as Canada's federal election reaches its climax. In this timely conversation, Neil McKenna brings his sharp strategic insights to unpack the forces shaping voter decisions in one of the most unpredictable races in recent memory.

McKenna cuts through the noise surrounding recent campaign controversies, including the "stop the steal" button incident, explaining why such political theatre might grab headlines but ultimately undermines public trust without significantly moving votes. His analysis of Pierre Poilievre's persistent struggles with female voters highlights a critical strategic failure - "Women make up probably half the country, and if half the country is not super excited about you, that probably doesn't spell electoral success."

The conversation takes a fascinating turn examining how voters make their decisions - whether based on party loyalty, leadership appeal, or local candidate strength. Drawing from his extensive campaign experience in both urban and rural ridings, McKenna reveals how successful representatives like Wayne Long can transcend party identification to build personal connections with constituents across political divides.

Former Prime Ministers are making rare campaign appearances, but do they actually sway votes? McKenna offers a nuanced take on the differing impacts of Stephen Harper's endorsement for Poilievre versus Jean Chrétien's support for Mark Carney. With the NDP polling at historical lows and potentially facing loss of official party status, we explore the complex dynamics of strategic voting and whether progressive collaboration might prevent vote splitting.

As ballots are about to be cast, McKenna boldly predicts a slim Liberal majority government while emphasizing the importance of civic participation regardless of political affiliation. This episode provides essential context for understanding the forces at play in Canada's pivotal federal election.

Don't miss the chance to vote on April 28th! Your voice matters in determining Canada's future direction.

Disclaimer: this episode was recorded on April 17, 2025 so while the news may have changed since this conversation, the thoughts and ideas still remain relevant.

Speaker 1:

Welcome back to let's Talk Politics. Neil McKenna, Senior Associate at Porter O'Brien and friend of the pod, is back with us for another pulse check on the federal election campaign. We're talking political theatre and, yes, of course there's drama Pierre Pauliev's ongoing struggle to connect with female voters and if former prime minister endorsements really help sway voters. Plus, we're breaking down what strategic voting really means, Because in a race this close, every vote counts and of course, you'll get the classic New Brunswick angle only Neil can bring. Oh, and make sure you stick around. Neil's even sharing his prediction for who's going to win the 2025 federal election. Quick heads up.

Speaker 1:

This episode was recorded on April 17, 2025. So, while the news may have changed since this conversation was recorded, the thoughts and ideas still remain relevant. So let's talk politics with Neil McKenna. Politics with Neil McKenna. There was a recent incident where liberal operatives reportedly planted a stop the steal button at a conservative conference. Pierre Poliev has now been using that to argue that it's actually the liberals who are importing divisive US-style politics into Canada. Do you think this kind of political theater has any real impact, especially on undecided voters, and do you think this could end up backfiring on the liberals?

Speaker 2:

I perhaps would start by respectfully rolling my eyes at Mr Pelliev, sort of accusing someone else of being divisive. But listen, I'm going to be straight with you. These really sort of dumb tactics are very unhelpful. I don't think, at the end of the day, that this particular issue with the PANS is going to move votes in one direction or the other. I think that most voters take it for what it is, which is young political staff making a poor move that, frankly, has limited value.

Speaker 2:

Where I find frustration here is the fact that, while this is not an issue that's going to move votes one way or the other, it does contribute a little bit to weakening in the trust of public institutions and those institutions, in this case, being political parties. The reality is that political parties are a big factor in forming government and they need to conduct themselves with a high level of integrity and trust, and a situation like this which, to be clear, all parties at all levels have been guilty of at one point or another, just doesn't help in all the parties is listen, there are things to focus on and there are things to avoid. Moments like this are things to avoid.

Speaker 1:

The focus should be on knocking on doors talking to voters and delivering the message as loudly as you can. Well said, and I totally agree with you. I don't know in the entirety of what happened in this case, but yeah, it's unfortunately, it's a political tactic. It's nothing new when it comes to these kinds of pieces, and especially in a high stakes campaign, and I also agree with you rolling my eyes at Polyev's divisiveness and trying to shift this narrative. He showed his cards very early on of who he was and the type of politics he's resonating with, and this kind of comes into. My next question here is Polyev continues to struggle with female voters, something that's not surprising. Giving his comments about biological clocks and his overall again US style Trump-like rhetoric making comments and patronizing a reporter about crowd sizes at his recent rally time and time again shows his colors, but, that being said, really time and time again shows his colors. But, that being said, do you think that he even cares about the female vote at this point when it comes to these divisive politics and his rhetoric?

Speaker 2:

I wouldn't accuse Mr Palliative of not caring about female voters, but I think the reality is that it's not a demographic where he has a lot of success and has not had a lot of success for the last couple of years.

Speaker 2:

Frankly, I think that's a pretty big strategic error. Women make up probably half the country and if half the country is not super excited about you, that probably doesn't spell electoral success. At the end of the day, it's a little bizarre in some ways that he didn't make more of an effort on that front to try and improve those numbers early on, have a little more of a genuine connection with women across the country. At the end of the day, all political parties have an idea of who their voters are and there are a number of factors at play, gender being one of them. Age, wealth, income, ethnicity they all play important factors, sort of where votes are likely to end up versus not. But this for Mr Polyev, in my view, is a pretty big problem to not have this connection with essentially half the country, and it's something I think that is a lesson for the Conservative Party to learn as they look ahead.

Speaker 1:

And a lot of factors definitely come into when it comes to appealing to certain voters. One other piece that I think comes up a lot, and you and I have both knocked on a lot of doors. One other piece that I think comes up a lot, and you and I have both knocked on a lot of doors. One trend I tend to see is people vote one of three ways. It's either they vote for the party, they vote for the leader or they vote for their local representative, and I want to put this back into a New Brunswick context, given how small the province is, both in population and in landmass size. Do you think one outweighs the other when it comes to voter sentiment?

Speaker 2:

Before I respond to the New Brunswick context, I want to go back to one of my first jobs in politics, which is working for an individual named Mike Bossio, who's the former MP Big rural riding in rural Ontario, with the city of Napanee kind of at the heart of it. This was a riding where Mike had won in 2015 by a very, very slim number. He'd won by about 225 votes, which is a pretty small percentage relative to a federal riding. I was there for the 2019 campaign so his first effort at re-election and it was really intriguing because Mike was an incredibly strong community MP. But what we noticed I would say probably on every sixth or seventh door I knocked in that campaign was that people, for the most part, were focusing largely on the debate between Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer and more directly, on the leadership of Justin Trudeau as prime minister. I think that the lesson to be learned from that is that most voters in my experience, are paying attention more so to the national narrative than what their individual candidate is doing for the most part.

Speaker 2:

Now, what's interesting is these days I live in a riding called St John Canabicasus where the incumbent MP is Liberal MP Wayne Long, and Wayne has been one of the most successful MPs, in my opinion, of being able to sort of convince people to vote for him and for his record, even if they aren't fully on board with what the Liberal government has done over the last decade or so.

Speaker 2:

When I look at the three factors you mentioned, I do think here in New Brunswick most voters are probably looking at it a little more nationally than their individual community representative. But there are some great lessons to be taken from Wang Long's tenure as a member of Parliament to really push and advocate for what an MP can do successfully on their own merit, and that's not just a matter of being in government or opposition. There are some excellent opposition MPs who've had huge successes as well, and we see their longevity, and I would think of someone like Michael Chong, the service, as a great example of that. At the end of the day, yes, most voters are going to look at the national trend, but the individual candidate is absolutely going to be able to make an impact on doors if they have a good story to tell.

Speaker 1:

Very well said and it brings a smile on my face too because, very similarly, in the sense of, my first job starting in 2018, 2019 was with Adam Bond. That was the writing of Spadina, fort York, and it was very interesting too. And I think that's where I sort of pick up of, okay, people vote one of three ways, because every other door I knocked on with Adam is I don't like your leader, I don't like your party, but I like you. Every other door I knocked on with Adam is I don't like your leader, I don't like your party, but I like you, I'm going to vote for you. Or, you know, adam was able to cultivate a lot of the NDP vote, but also, just in general, his mindset of different policies. So, yeah, it's really interesting. And same thing working with Seamus. That local perspective is so, so critical. I also do have a lot of respect for Wayne Long. I really like the comms he's been putting out recently too.

Speaker 1:

But I want to go back to Polyev and the drop in numbers when it comes to conservatives. Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently made a very rare appearance on the campaign trail to endorse Pierre Polyev, calling him someone with the political experience to be a prime minister. Do you think that endorsement from Harper will actually sway voters? Because from the outside, how I'm looking at this and it could be my own bias it kind of felt like a panicked move from the Conservatives, considering they had such a solid lead earlier in the year when Justin Trudeau was the primed candidate for the Liberals. Again, we saw that drop by nearly 20 points and now Harper's suddenly back in the spotlight. I think that signals confidence, or does it suggest the Conservatives are getting a little nervous?

Speaker 2:

Frankly, I don't think it signals confidence. Frankly, I don't think it signals confidence. Look, at the end of the day, a former Conservative leader endorsing the current Conservative leader is not something that really sways a whole lot of votes in one direction or another, because you're talking essentially to the same. Given that Mr Harper tends to prefer a more private life following his year as Prime Minister, which he is fully entitled to, the fact that he's coming out at this juncture to me suggests it's more of a favor to the campaign and a little bit yes, in my view of a desperation.

Speaker 2:

Listen, mr Arbery carries a great deal of weight with conservatives and I would say probably with Western Canada most strongly. But at the end of the day it's a little unusual to have the most recent conservative prime minister come out and take that position. So for me I don't think it spells a lot of confidence in Mr Polyev's campaign. It's nice, it's a great rally and the one thing it does allow him to do successfully is kind of own that day in the news, because the Harper appearance on the campaign is going to make the news for the day. Does that move votes strongly in one way or the other? I would say no, not at all.

Speaker 1:

Interesting, and I would flip the question. We've also seen Jean Chrétien come out. The guy's in his 90s looks great, but who's also been coming out, I would say, the last few years? More specifically, on this campaign as well, what are your thoughts on that from a liberal perspective, of bringing back such a respected liberal leader? Does that signal anywhere where the party's trying to shift its narrative?

Speaker 2:

So in fairness, you could perhaps make the same critique, but I would argue the difference is that Mr Chrétien has never really stopped being in the public eye.

Speaker 2:

He's been commenting publicly for the last 30 years, or the last 20 years rather, since he stopped being prime minister. The reality is that he carries a very, very strong sway, particularly in Quebec, and I think the key difference is that Mr Carney is still a new liberal leader in the most literal sense of the term. He's been there for about six weeks. So to have Mr Kretchen come out and support him, I think is a little bit different in the sense that it can help establish strongly his roots as a proud liberal in Canada, whereas with Mr Polly and Mr Harper Mr Polly has sort of had two years and 20 in parliament to make that case. So to have Mr Harper come out late in the game for the Conservatives, I think, looks a little less useful, whereas Mr Chrétien is like oh, mr Chrétien is here, it's going to be a party. That's always fun. That probably is the key difference, in my estimation.

Speaker 1:

Oh, good point. And yes, who wouldn't be partying with Jean Chrétien? I think is the real question, no matter your political strength, absolutely. Jean Chrétien also had criticized the Liberals about wanting to bring the party back to centre, and there's been arguments that Justin Trudeau, the Liberals under him, moved centre-left. And we can point to, you know, the supply and competence agreement with the NDP. Some of the policies that were put forward. Mark Carney, on the other hand, comes from more of an economic background. We were talking earlier about that technocratic piece and those arguments. He's going to be bringing the party more to the right. I would also argue political spectrums are completely skewed.

Speaker 1:

All this to say, one of the big concerns we hear in every election is strategic voting and vote splitting.

Speaker 1:

Is strategic voting and vote splitting and this comes down especially between the NDP and the Liberals, which can ultimately pave the way for a Conservative win, and it's a pattern we've seen before. Again, I can point to the most recent Ontario election, which gave Doug Ford another majority. So here's my question Should the NDP have a moment of reflection and say you know, hey, look, look, we may not form government this time, but we can still play a powerful role in shaping its outcome. And I'm not talking about forfeiting, because I know they do have a lot of contentious writings across the country, maybe less so in New Brunswick, but please enlighten me if they do. But, you know, shifting that tone of attacking the liberals less because, let's, let's be honest, when the NDP and Liberals go after each other federally, it doesn't really land well with either side of its voters. And is there a possibility that we can do that strategic collaborative messaging between NDP and Liberals to, you know, avoid rollback of a lot of policies both parties have pushed for?

Speaker 2:

to avoid rollback of a lot of policies both parties have pushed for. It's a great question. I think increased collaboration is probably a good goal and something the party should aspire to, especially in Parliament itself, and I think that the confidence and supply agreement was actually a great success in that regard of helping sort of introduce Canadians to the idea that, yes, political parties can in fact work together when they have common ground and, frankly, coalition governments and those sort of confidence and supply agreements are much more common in many other democracies in other parts of the world. I think that's a great success and something we should push for. To your point on this campaign and where the NDP find themselves, I'm going to disagree slightly.

Speaker 2:

I think that our political parties in campaigns should push as hard as they can to try and win and form government.

Speaker 2:

I think that that's only fair and that Canadians should have an expectation that a party should try to put themselves forward as a vision of leadership for the country. Are there some areas where perhaps similarly aligned parties could sort of agree publicly to not run candidates in areas where they're strong versus the other? I think that's probably fair, but this is very important. Both parties in that situation have to agree, and I think if one party is more likely to win power than the other, then they're not going to be as excited to just hold up their own end of the bargain on that front. And so for that reason, I think that during campaigns, parties should do their best to try and run a national campaign and make their case to voters. I do appreciate that there is a lot of vote splitting. That happens in this country and we see it all the time with the Liberals and the NDP. My suggestion is that both of those parties should just push hard and try and make the case that they can present the best vision for Canada.

Speaker 1:

I take your point but I will push back. The NDP are really low in the polls, to the point they're actually at risk of losing official party status. So at what point do you just really throw in the towel? And I could even point to the bloc who are not naive. François Blanchet, the leader. He said last night in the French debate I'm not running to be prime minister, I'm running to uphold and maintain the rights and freedoms of Quebecers and make their lives better. So yeah, I guess, at what point do you really throw in the towel to avoid this rollback? And I don't see, write them off. But the numbers don't lie either.

Speaker 2:

No, it's a fair point. I think where the NDP find themselves, which right now is sort of a historic low, it is probably time to start thinking about those conversations and where they can have the most impact. I think if I'm the NDP, I'm looking at trying to hold the liberals to a minority and to probably go back into a similar confidence supply agreement down the road. So, yes, they do have to think about that at this juncture, out of the gate. I think every party should make a strong case to Canadians. I think Canadians deserve that and, frankly, it's only fair In the case of the Bloc. This is probably my biggest frustration with the Bloc is that they're encouraging people to vote for a party that frankly does not have a national interest because they're a provincially focused party, and while I respect their right to do that, I don't think in the long term that makes any sense for voters in Quebec and it's been a frustration for me for many years.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, I agree with you too, and even just looking back at the most recent government, that they were the third official party when they're only upholding the interests of one province, and I totally agree, they have their right and I respect their right to do so. But federally is one thing versus provincial, as we're just wrapping up here. From campaign slogans to social media tactics, what's one party that is absolutely nailing their messaging? And who do you think is kind of missing the mark to sell to voters, less speaking to their bases, but more to those undecided voters?

Speaker 2:

I think that Mr Kearney and the Liberals have done the best job of reaching out to the undecided voters. The polls reflect that, at least in this current moment. I think they've done a fantastic job of presenting him not just as the leader of the Liberal Party but as the Prime Minister of Canada in a very tense moment in our country's history. It's been, I think, probably the absolute most important and most salient point of this campaign In terms of on the other side, I would kind of say a little bit of everyone else has missed the moment a little bit.

Speaker 2:

As I said earlier, I think the Conservatives were a little slow to understanding what this campaign is about. Canadians, the NDP, have just found themselves entirely squeezed out of the conversation, rightly or wrongly. That's just the situation they find themselves in, and it's the same for the Green Party and I think the Bloc has probably their chunk in Quebec, but may find themselves in and it's the same for the Green Party and I think the Bloc has their chunk in Quebec, but may find themselves with less success than they've had in the last couple of campaigns. At the end of the day, campaigns are about meeting the moment and I think that the Liberals, to this point, have done the best job on that measure.

Speaker 1:

Good points. And my last question here if you had to bet on it, what does the next government look like? Are you feeling minority majority, a total wild card? What are your thoughts?

Speaker 2:

Oh man, this is a tough question and I, of course, stand to be proven wrong as we look ahead a few days from now. My prediction as of this moment is, I'm going to say, a slim liberal majority. I think that's very much possible and I think it's the likely stoke liberal majority.

Speaker 1:

I think that's very much possible and I think it's the likelyst outcome Interesting, so I'll have to hold you to that. We'll follow up after April 28th, but this was Neil McKenna, the Senior Associate at Porter O'Brien. Neil, any other closing thoughts you want to share with our listeners?

Speaker 2:

I would just encourage everyone to keep paying attention, get out and vote. If you have any questions about how we can help move policy forward, give us a call. Porter O'Brien would be happy to talk to you.

Speaker 1:

Great, and I want to thank you, Neil, so much for this really insightful conversation. I think it's going to be of great value to people, especially as they're navigating this really uncertain and wild election, one that we haven't seen before. So that was Neil McEniff, Senior Associate at Porter O'Brien. Please be sure to reach out for any of your GR PR communications needs. They'll be there to guide you, and that's Neil McKenna on let's Talk Politics. Please tune in next week for my next special guest. Have a good one.