There’s a theory circulating that the Liberal Party was hoping for a Donald Trump win. It’s the sort of thing that pops up online and in the occasional column; the sort of thing that sounds plausible until you think about it for a moment.
The idea is that Trump would be a useful foil for the Liberals, who are down 20 points in the polls ahead of the 2025 federal election. Moreover, the Liberals could tie Trump to Pierre Poilievre, warning that the Conservative leader is nothing more than a Maple Maga clone. After that, voters, scared straight, would come flocking back to the natural governing party.
Writing in the Toronto Star, Mark McQueen went so far as to say Trudeau won the U.S. election. “Trump’s political rebirth presents our Prime Minister with a career-saving opportunity,” he writes. “Trudeau gets to spend the next eleven months playing the delicious role of Escamillo, the brave bullfighting Toreador from Bizet’s timeless opera Carmen.”
I’m not convinced. McQueen, and those who back the Trump-as-Liberal-saviour theory, have things exactly backward.
Recent pre-election data from the Angus Reid Institute shows Canadians prefer Poilievre over Trudeau 38 per cent to 23 per cent when it comes to working with Trump. That compares to 37 per cent who would have trusted Trudeau to work with Kamala Harris versus 30 per cent for Poilievre.
The first Trump administration was difficult to manage for the Trudeau government. They fared well enough, but the Republican is no fan of Trudeau and round two will be a harder fight. Trump has called Trudeau “two faced” and “a left-wing lunatic.” Former White House national security advisor John Bolton claims Trump dislikes Trudeau and even ordered staff to attack Trudeau on television. The prime minister himself warned earlier this year that a second go ‘round with the Donald would be “a step back” and that it wouldn’t be easy.
Personalities aside, the Trump administration’s agenda will also be difficult for Canada to manage. Trump is threatening 10 per cent – or higher – tariffs across the board on imported goods. That would hit Canada hard. The last thing the Liberals need right now is higher prices or an economic downturn. The voting population would not be forgiving, nor understanding. The Liberals wouldn’t get away with pleading the Trump factor, either.
The economy is merely one challenge. Trump is also set to put the screws to Canada on renegotiating the US-Canada-Mexico Agreement and increasing defence spending. His threat of mass deportation of undocumented people could cause a migration crisis that would put pressure on the northern border crossing. Trump is even eyeing British Columbia’s freshwater as a solution to California’s persistent droughts.
None of this is good news for the Liberals. Even if the government finds a way to navigate the mercurial Trump – a big “if” – it’s unlikely voters will recognize the accomplishment and premise their vote on it. As the U.S. election reminds us, the economy, inflation, and the cost of living dominate the minds of voters. And while some Canadian macro indicators are good news, such as the cooling rate of inflation, people are still struggling to get through the day – and looking for someone to blame. That’s going to be the incumbent Liberal government, as it has been in the U.S., the U.K. and provincially in Manitoba, New Brunswick, and, very nearly, in B.C.
Poilievre has his own Trump problem, but it’s not nearly as serious as Trudeau’s. Most Canadians, 64 per cent, say they would have voted for Harris if they had a U.S. ballot to cast, while only 21 per cent would have supported Trump. These numbers suggest Poilievre has little to gain electorally by cozying up to Trump or being painted as Trump North.
Presumably most of the 21 per cent would-be Trump backers are already Poilievre supporters. Poilievre needs those votes, but he also needs a healthy share of the 64 per cent who prefer Harris, which is to say that Poilievre needs to manage a broader coalition than the Trumpiest parts of the Conservative base. So far, he’s managed to do that, at least in the polls.
Poilievre may wish to manage his potential relationship with Trump carefully, likely defaulting to the classic line that he looks forward to working together on shared priorities, a category that will be constructed broadly and without subsequent detail, before hammering on some conception of economic freedom and pivoting to a focus on affairs closer to home.
Ultimately what Trump means for the Canadian election will be less about Trump and more about how his actions shape Canadian domestic affairs. A plurality of Canadians will likely focus on core economic concerns and, whatever they think of U.S. politics, worry about their pocketbooks and frustrations with the Liberals after a decade of their governance — more than theoretical comparisons between leaders across borders. In sum, Trump won’t save the Liberals, and may end up doing them some further harm.
Comments
We saw that "orange man bad" doesn't work. Going negative on Poilievre is just as futile. If the Liberals and the NDP clearly present a hopeful way forward they might stand a bit of a chance (but probably not).
Ah, you're just "all in" on the excitement of the fight, the game, and the resulting bandwagon against Trudeau as convenient and vulnerable whipping boy for capitalism and corporate greed, irrational and dangerous though that clearly is, especially in light of the travesty that just happened in the American election.
But you're sticking with that disaster mainly being about the supposed mess Biden and the Democrats made of the economy when it's actually firing on all cylinders, inflation is way down, and 78% of the billions from the IRA is going to RED states? And completely ignoring the historic fact of a woman who is also brown in systemically misogynist and racist America got WAY too close to stealing the world's most exalted and traditional bastion of male hegemony? Talk about "stop the steal."
Like most other male journalists in particular, you also don't seem to recognize the media's role generally in the full-frontal and entirely unfair assault on Trudeau any more than when that was identified in all the free PR for Trump.
And have you not noticed that Poilievre is way out of his "depth" (pfffttttt, as if he has ANY) as any kind of world statesman? He's as provincial as they come, especially compared to Trudeau.
The bottom line is that nearly all the Canadian media leans right, whether traditional or "social". There are a lot of political lines that could work if that was not the case but cannot work in Canada as it exists because the media will stop them from getting traction.
There are indications that true economic populism can break through that barrier (I think there's no doubt that Bernie Sanders would have beaten Trump), but running against Trump and trying to tie Poilievre to him probably cannot . . . the papers and the TV just won't talk about it much.
That said, it does matter just how badly Trump governs this time, and just how hard his people from J.D. Vance on down push the Project 2025 agenda. If the Trump government is a really horrible shit-show, which is actually quite likely, I don't see where that would be good for Poilievre. Then if Trudeau takes a walk in the snow and we get someone like Carney instead, all bets could be off.