Everyone around me had already called the election for Poilievre.
They saw a struggling Liberal Party, an unpopular prime minister, and a Conservative leader who had mastered the art of political combat. The narrative was locked in: this was a change election, and Trudeau’s Liberals were finished.
I never fully bought it.
Ever since the inevitability of an early election became apparent, I have, often as a minority in the room, been asking people to not eliminate the Liberals’ completely.
The moment Mark Carney entered the race last week, I said, “Now things have completely shifted. Liberals can win.”
As I see it, Carney’s entry isn’t just a shake-up – it was a recalibration of the entire election. For me, he embodies the one thing Trudeau couldn’t convincingly offer – economic credibility. His candidacy will give the Liberals a way to pivot without completely abandoning Trudeau, essentially positioning themselves as a party that has learnt its lesson and was ready to course-correct.
And yet, most people have dismissed it.
Senior bureaucrats, political analysts, and even casual observers scoffed. Some questioned his motives, others wrote him off as a political amateur stepping into a game he didn’t understand. I overheard one well-connected bureaucrat, someone who claimed to know Carney personally, laugh about how he was going to make a joke of himself.
But, for me, personally, Carney’s decision isn’t just smart; it is strategically brilliant.
The “Win-Win” Candidacy
What people fail to see is that, whether Carney wins or loses, his move is a masterstroke. If he wins, he would be the Liberals’ savior – the leader who rescued the party from collapse and restored its credibility on the economy. If he loses, he wouldn’t be blamed for the defeat; that burden would still rest on Trudeau. Instead, he would have a full four years sitting on the sidelines, as the leader of the Liberal party, preparing for his inevitable rise, reminding Canadians what they had missed out on.
This is the long game.
Either way, Carney has positioned himself as the heir apparent. His entry alone is enough to shift the perception of the Liberal Party. They weren’t just doubling down on the same old message – they were signaling that they had heard the electorate’s concerns and were responding with a credible, experienced alternative.
This is the kind of strategic thinking that defines successful leadership – not just in politics, but in business, management, and even personal decision-making. The ability to make moves that secure your position regardless of the immediate outcome is what separates those who merely react from those who shape the future.
The Trump Factor and the Fear Vote
What many have underestimated is the role of external forces in shaping the Canadian political landscape. The rise of Trump down south, and his seemingly unstoppable momentum, in my opinion, have also changed the stakes of the upcoming election.
Canadians might not have been thrilled with Trudeau, but when faced with the prospect of a Conservative government that could be perceived as ideologically aligned with a resurgent Trump-led Republican movement, the choice becomes clearer for a lot of voters. Fear has always been a more powerful motivator than hope in politics. The idea of Canada mirroring the political chaos of the U.S. likely will push many undecided voters toward the Liberals.
This is what, I believe, so many analysts are missing.
Poilievre’s base has definitely been energized, no doubt, but that’s not the same as broad national appeal – especially in a country as centrist as Canada. The real question, if I am asked, was never whether Poilievre could rally his supporters; it was whether he could expand beyond them. Could he convince enough Canadians that a Conservative government under his leadership wouldn’t feel like an ideological cousin to the chaos brewing in the U.S.?
As Trump’s strength, and wider understanding of his plans, will grow, I bet Poilievre’s chances will shrink. And yet, so many experts continue to ignore this shift, assuming that momentum and inevitability are the same thing.
The Blind Spots of Political Punditry
This is the problem with political echo chambers, and in many ways, it mirrors the blind spots that exist in business, leadership, and even personal decision-making. People see what they want to see. They assume the trends of today will continue indefinitely. They mistake volume for consensus, momentum for inevitability.
But politics, like markets, doesn’t move in straight lines. Narratives shift. Voters recalibrate. The last mile is always the hardest to predict.
The fundamental miscalculation has been in assuming that Trudeau’s unpopularity would automatically translate into a Conservative victory. But dissatisfaction alone doesn’t win elections – you need an alternative that people trust. And as the election will draw closer, more and more Canadians are bound to see Carney as that alternative.
Timing Is Everything
I know time will tell. But from where I sit, Mark Carney is the right man at the right moment. His credentials, his economic expertise, and his ability to pivot the Liberal Party away from Trudeau’s weaknesses have made his rise not just possible but, in hindsight, inevitable. Carney securing the Liberal nomination is inevitable.
Poilievre, for all his strengths, was, and is, a candidate built for a different election – one that might have existed if the world around us had looked slightly different. If the economy had been less of a dominant issue. If Trump had faded into the background. If the Liberals had refused to adapt.
But timing, as always, and as I insisted above, is everything.
Carney has not just entered the race. He has defined it. And in doing so, he proved what I had believed all along – this was never (only) Poilievre’s election to win. Infact, I am going to go against the tide and call the next election as an election that is still undecided … and an election that will take some serious effort on part of either party to win.
Do not write off the Liberals, definitely not Mark Carney!