What Really Went Wrong with Pierre Poilievre’s Campaign?
Reflections on the 2025 Canadian Election
Whether you supported Pierre Poilievre or not, one thing should be clear: this conversation matters.
Canada needs a strong, credible opposition. That’s not a partisan statement—it’s a democratic one. A healthy government is only as good as the challenges it receives. And 41.3% of Canadians voted Conservative in this election. Their concerns, frustrations, and ideas must be taken seriously if we want a country that reflects all its people—not just the victors of a moment.
That’s why it’s worth unpacking what really happened to Pierre Poilievre’s campaign.
Much has been made of Poilievre, the Conservatives, and the surprising collapse of what once looked like a winning path to power. In a matter of weeks, he went from leading the polls with 44.8% support in January to losing not just the election—but his own seat in Carleton.
But here’s the nuance often missed: despite Poilievre’s personal loss, the Conservative Party increased both its seat count and national vote share—forming the largest Official Opposition in Canadian history. The party grew stronger. But its leader did not.
So what went wrong?
Some point to external factors: a chaotic ballot with 91 names in his riding, Donald Trump’s inflammatory comments that dominated headlines, and Mark Carney’s last-minute pivot on the carbon tax, which reshaped the tone of the election. These arguments aren’t without merit.
Others argue that Poilievre’s downfall was more personal. That he was too abrasive. That he reminded Canadians of Donald Trump but refused to publicly distance himself. That he had a history of curt, dismissive language. That he simply wasn’t likable or relatable enough for a country that values civility and moderation.
But both of these narratives share the same flaw: they begin with the outcome and then work backward. One side assumes Poilievre had the win in hand. The other assumes he never had a real shot.
I don’t buy either version.
Yes, 27% of Canadian Conservatives support Donald Trump, despite believing he’d be bad for Canada (according to a Pollara poll). Yes, the Liberals surged in the polls—from 20.1% in January to 42.2% by April 26th. But it’s not because Canadians suddenly fell in love with Mark Carney’s leadership—he had only entered the scene in March. Nor was it because of a brilliant platform—the Liberal campaign wasn't released until April 19th.
So what did happen?
I believe Pierre Poilievre made three key strategic mistakes—missteps that offer important lessons not just for his party, but for any leader seeking to build trust in today’s political climate.
1. He Didn’t Speak to the Canadian Spirit
When Poilievre became leader, he underwent a visible image change: he dropped the glasses, got a tan, updated his look. The goal was clear—modernize the brand. But image isn’t identity, and it certainly isn’t culture.
Mark Carney, on the other hand, leaned into Canadian symbolism. A light-hearted video with Mike Myers at a hockey rink became a viral moment. Even parodies of the clip worked—because they tapped into something unmistakably Canadian.
Poilievre didn’t do that. He didn’t celebrate Canadian culture in visible, unifying ways. No big hockey moments. No cross-partisan icons like Rick Hansen. He campaigned like a competent, focused politician—but not like someone emotionally in tune with Canada’s collective identity. And in a country where voters ask, “Would I have a beer with this person?”—that emotional connection matters.
2. He Avoided Tough, Authentic Conversations
Pierre and his wife Anaida made appearances—but mostly in safe spaces: True North, Jordan Peterson, Brian Lilley. His interview with Shane Parrish stood out as thoughtful and reflective. But overall, he was perceived as avoiding tougher interviews—especially with journalists or outlets that might challenge him.
That’s a missed opportunity.
In today’s era, authenticity trumps polish. Canadians want leaders who are willing to answer hard questions, admit uncertainty, and show their thinking in real time. Poilievre often felt overly managed. He missed the chance to humanize himself and dispel narratives that he didn’t care about vulnerable communities, First Nations, LGBTQ+ Canadians, or those struggling with affordability.
Whether fair or not, his silence on many of these fronts spoke volumes.
3. He Was Too Controlled—And Not Enough Himself
Pierre was relentlessly on message. “Everything feels broken.” “Axe the tax.” The slogans were sharp—but they came at a cost.
Today’s voters are growing weary of empty messaging. They want ideas, yes—but they also want to understand a leader’s values. What is your philosophy? What do you stand for, beyond the polling?
Many felt Poilievre’s positioning was poll-tested rather than principle-driven. And that perception—that he was more concerned with winning than with standing for something—undermined his credibility.
He was squeezed from both sides. The left accused him of being too extreme. The right—figures like Maxime Bernier and Patrick Bet-David—accused him of being too centrist. That tells you something: he was trying to please too many people without clearly articulating who he is.
A Fork in the Road
So where does he go from here?
Poilievre still has a shot. He’s planning to run in a byelection in Alberta’s Battle River–Crowfoot riding. The party remains strong and energized. But he needs to make a choice.
If he wants to rebuild trust, he can’t just come back with a sharper slogan. He needs to define his values—his why. He needs to sit down with critics, open up to diverse media outlets, and show Canadians that he doesn’t just want to win—he wants to lead.
Because without clarity and authenticity, the same mistakes will repeat themselves.
Why It Matters—Even If You Didn’t Vote Conservative
This isn’t just about Pierre Poilievre.
It’s about how we expect our politicians to lead. It’s about how we build unity in a country where political divides are deepening. And it’s about whether we take seriously the voices of millions of Canadians who voted Conservative—even if their leader lost.
If Mark Carney wants to govern well, he needs to govern inclusively. If Poilievre wants to return, he needs to evolve. And if Canadians want better, more accountable politics, we need to stop dismissing each other based on which party we support.
We're facing U.S. tariffs, a housing crisis, declining biodiversity, and a generation shut out of home ownership. The stakes are too high for slogans and silence.
We need leadership with vision, courage, and humility.
Pierre Poilievre lost this election. But if we’re honest about why, all of us might learn something worth carrying into the next.
You place all your three explanations in the "personality of Pierre" bucket. I think that was certainly a factor, and why more Canadians didn't move to the Conservatives. But without both a Liberal leadership change AND the Trump threat on offer, the Liberals would most certainly not have won. They borrowed votes from the NDP and Bloc to make it over the line, and these were certainly anti-Trump strategic votes. Both the Liberal and Conservative base stuck, with the CPC eternally damaged by its "pro-Trump" 30%, but the huge distaste for Justin Trudeau was what brought others back to the Liberals when he exited. If you look at the poll shifts when Carney stepped in but before Trump did his tariff and anti-Canada thing, the shift was not sufficient to give the Liberals a win.
Poilievre did well-ish for the Conservatives but fact still remains he lost a giant lead and his own seat. Fact still remains that the Liberals got 26 more seats than the Conservatives, won the most votes in seven out of 10 provinces and captured the most votes in Canadian electoral history.
Poilievre was his own undoing. His (much too late) pivot was ridiculous after after bragging to Peterson that he's never changed his mind and never will. The pivot just became another in a long list of lies.