I’m sure we’ll see a deluge of polls in the coming days about how Canadians are responding. We’ve already seen some numbers from the Angus Reid Institute showing 76% of Canadians think Carney was right to back out of trade talks. 3 in 4 might feel like carte blanche territory, a signal that things are definitively on the right track. But that’s not a full read.

Instead of hopping into the field with a survey, I decided to gather qualitative insights. I wanted to understand the texture of opinion, not just a thumbs-up/thumbs-down. I conducted 48 interviews using Relay’s proprietary Text Snapshot methodology, which lets us do qualitative research via text message. The study was launched within a couple of hours of the PM’s press conference on Saturday and wrapped up last night to capture opinions as they gelled. Participants were asked about their feelings about life in Canada, awareness of and reaction to the collapsed trade negotiations with the US, impression of how Pierre Poilievre might have handled these negotiations, and what advice they would give the PM if they had a chance.

Often, *exhales* still, we talk about Canadian voters as if there are two kinds: cost-of-living voters and anti-Trump voters. These interviews make it very clear that these two apparently distinct voters are often one and the same. They’re cross-pressured.

About 2 in 3 participants supported the Prime Minister’s decision, most of whom strongly support it and see it as an assertion of Canadian autonomy and a source of national pride.

• Strongly support: 27 respondents

• Lean support: 4 respondents

• Neutral/Unsure: 6 respondents

• Lean opposed: 3 respondents

• Strongly opposed: 8 respondents

This shouldn’t be read as joy or “a win.” It’s resolve. Because at the same time that many of these respondents expressed support for the government’s handling of the Trump administration, they also expressed significant concern about how things are going in the country currently. Some of this is because of healthcare. Some of it is about politics. Most of it is about the cost of living, particularly the cost of food.

In this context, Carney telling Trump to shove it isn’t exactly a cause for celebration. It signals that things that are already hard are going to get harder, but there is no other choice. There’s also a significant stream of righteousness – the feeling that Canada is standing up to a bully (or worse).

Participants’ advice to the PM was really demonstrative of how they’re feeling in this moment:

• I would tell him that I’m proud of him and feel that he’s the right man to be PM in the absurd situation in which our country finds itself. The whole thing about Trump being the head of the most powerful country in the world is insane, as is the man himself. - Woman, 78, LPC Voter

• To keep calm and grind away. - Man, 39, LPC Voter

• I would tell him to stand firm and be transparent with the Canadian people and the provinces to keep everyone on the same side. - Man, 78, LPC Voter

• I would tell him to actually look at an average grocery receipt before making these decisions. Stop worrying about political standoffs with the Americans and start worrying about what regular people can actually afford. My advice is to make a deal that protects our cost of living, because everyday Canadians can’t afford to keep paying the price for these trade wars - Man, 25, LPC Voter

• Do what’s best for Canadians and do not give in, we are a strong country and we have enough resources to be able to stand on our own - Woman, 45, CPC Voter

• Continue to be firm and patient, we are not strong enough to withstand a powerful US country but should tariff the items that the US needs very badly. Hopefully US citizens will put pressure on their own leaders - Man, 54, CPC Voter

Of course, not every respondent followed this pattern. Conservative voters in this sample were almost evenly divided. The most common reasons for opposing the PM’s decision include lack of trust in the PM/Liberals, assumption of political benefit, and fear of the economic toll.

• I’ve only heard what you just mentioned but do not believe anything coming from this government. If the negotiations failed I believe that there is much more to the story than what we are being told. - Man, 77, CPC voter

• I heard some, first there was a deal, then there wasn’t. Honestly, I think Carney suspects an election is looking and he pulled out of negotiations to have Trump to blame the economy on in the event there is an election - Woman, 55, CPC voter

• It’s a bad idea our economy has taken a toll. It was wrong we need to trade with the us to stabilize our economy. - Man, 32, CPC voter

Politics is all about contrasts. How do voters think Poilievre would have fared if he were Prime Minister? 30/48 participants feel like Canada would be in a worse position.

• P.P would have done nothing for a trade agreement, Because he is incapable of doing anything for Canada, all he has ever done is live off the backs of the taxpayer for the last 24 years! - Man, 75, NDP Voter

• No, I don’t see him as a strong leader and I think he is not able to stand up to trump . PP would have given away everything and laid the groundwork for Canada to become the 51st state. The man scares me. - Woman, 78, LPC Voter

• Pierre won’t even get his security clearance. He’s never had another job besides this one and he can barely do that. It would be horrendous - Woman, 57, LPC Voter

9/48 respondents felt like Canada would be better positioned. For context, 16 of the respondents in this study were Conservative voters.

• Much better | He is for canadiens not American interests - Man, 41, CPC Voter

• So far, from what I have seen Pierre Poilievre seems to focus on the people. Do I think he could have done a better job, I would have to say yes. No we would have been in a way better spot. - Woman, 56, CPC Voter

• I think conservatives would have accepted but on different terms, Pierre is more of a risk taker and willing to gamble for a better future, alcohol would be on shelves for sure! - Woman, 56, CPC Voter

But an equal number (9) felt like there would have been no difference either way.

• I honestly think neither would do a good job, the problem is Trump. I think whoever in Carney’s position it’d be the same outcome. - Woman, 27, NDP Voter

• Probably about the same. Poilievre may have taken a different approach, but the U.S. demands were the main obstacle, so I don’t think Canada would necessarily be in a significantly better position. I think we probably would’ve ended up in a pretty similar spot. Poilievre might have handled the negotiations differently, but I don’t think that necessarily would’ve resulted in a better deal for Canada. - Man, 23, CPC Voter

This data points to why survey questions, especially forced-choice ones, can be incomplete. They create a story that’s far too tidy. Here we find Canadians, not necessarily in conflict with themselves, but having two sources of anxiety, which at times overlap. They’re worried about what life costs today, and what Trump could cost us (in every sense) tomorrow. The misread is to feel like Carney is just crushing it - that voters are over-the-moon happy. It’s not really happiness. It’s something like faith. Or confidence. Or hope. A guide through the storm.

Curious what your audience is thinking? Text Snapshot lets you hear from hundreds of people in days, not weeks. If you’re dealing with a fast-moving political moment, a thorny policy question, a local development issue, or a long-term strategic problem, I can help.

Find out more here.

AI disclosure

Claude put together the slightly aesthetic quote visual. I wrote everything else. Except the quotes. Other humans wrote those.

Share

Doug Ford reflected on this broader tension yesterday, although with a different conclusion than I make. In rolling out his government’s data centre framework, he said: “I think people have to learn a lot more about data centres. It’s ironic that a municipality says, ‘I don’t want a data centre, but all my businesses need a data centre. They need AI. My hospital needs AI and everyone that lives in that community uses social media, uses computers.’ It doesn’t add up.”

So is Doug Ford right? Are we all AI hypocrites?

Subscribe now

Let’s start with how concerns about AI and data centres stack up: not highly. Just 5% of Canadians choose it as one of their top 3 voting issues, far behind the cost of living, healthcare, the economy, housing costs, and the trade war. It pops the most among young people (8% of 18-34-year-olds) and NDP voters (8%), but is still far from a top priority. At least for now.

Two-thirds of Canadians say they are at least somewhat familiar with AI. Familiarity looks dramatically different across age groups and education. Canadians <35 are almost 6x as likely as seniors to say they are “very familiar” with AI, and 8 in 10 report being at least “somewhat” familiar with it. Those with a university education are twice as likely to feel “very familiar” with AI as those with a high school education or less. Unsurprisingly, those who use AI are vastly more likely than those who don’t to feel familiar with the technology, although just 28% of users feel “very familiar” with it.

6 in 10 Canadians use AI in at least one of the ways tested in this survey, with usage patterns closely reflecting familiarity: men, young people, and those with a university education are significantly more likely to have adopted AI in their lives. Liberal, Conservative, and NDP voters show the same level of AI adoption. Bloc voters in this sample show higher levels of AI use, but the sample size is quite small, so take it with a grain of salt.

How exactly are Canadians using AI? We focus so much on AI’s impact in the workplace, but personal use is higher. The most common use of AI is as a replacement for Google or other search engines, followed by shopping and researching products and services, learning more about hobbies and interests, and learning how to repair things. This is then followed by completing work tasks (30%). Less common but still prevalent is the use of AI for home design and renovations (hello 👋), beauty, fashion, or exercise advice, and for helping manage your mental health. 19% of Canadians use it to help manage their relationships, and 17% use it for parenting advice.

Men are more likely than women to use AI for every item tested, but home design and beauty, fashion, or exercise advice are tied. The education gap identified earlier is largely driven by workplace adoption - half (48%) of those with a university education use AI to complete tasks at work, compared to 30% of those with a college, apprenticeship, or CEGEP education, and 19% of those with a high school diploma or less.

The age differences are profound; the largest gaps in adoption between those 18-34 and seniors are work (46% vs. 8%), learning about hobbies and interests (50% vs. 15%), consumer research (56% vs. 23%), and mental health management (39% vs. 6%).

In all this usage, what is the expected net effect? A plurality of Canadians (37%) expect AI to improve their lives, although just 11% expect it to “greatly” improve. 1 in 4 Canadians expect AI to worsen their lives, and a further 25% are conflicted – they expect equal effects. The AI optimists tend to be young people (48% expect improvement) and men (42%). Expected positive effects also increase dramatically with income. Those with a household income between $150 and $250k are 3x as likely to expect AI to “greatly improve” their life, as compared to someone with a household income <$20k. Additionally, a majority (55%) of current AI users expect AI to improve their lives, while 28% expect it to improve and worsen their lives equally. 46% of those who do not use AI expect it to worsen their lives.

While just 1 in 4 Canadians expect AI to worsen their lives, concerns about AI remain widespread and profound. Canadians are most concerned about job elimination, AI providing incorrect information, and its use to spread propaganda or misinformation; about 3 in 4 Canadians are worried about each of these outcomes. A further 69% are worried about people replacing real-world relationships with AI, 61% are worried about data centres being built, and 59% are worried about AI’s impact on the environment.

AI users do not give the technology a free pass. They’re also worried about these issues. While they might be less likely than non-users to be “extremely worried,” the aggregate level of worry is comparable, with the impact on jobs and the information ecosystem topping the list.

If you’re a tech booster – professionally, legislatively, recreationally – you might read this data and think “Well! We just need to remind people that they too use AI! They can’t oppose data centres because how else can they look up the value of a leather sling back chair!” (for example). Very “bubble gum is made of petroleum!” shit. Don’t. Instead of pointing out what you perceive as hypocrisy (hi, Doug), maybe accept that people contain multitudes. We’re consumers, and we’re citizens; our priorities can duel. The task is to make Canadians’ contradictory views feel more in harmony. So answer their questions. How do you plan to build data centres that are environmentally responsible? How will projects disperse their touted massive economic benefit? How do your models protect people – both from outside forces and from themselves? There’s no finger-wagging out of this.

AI disclosure

While I’ve mentioned in this article that I use AI a lot, I do not use it to write this newsletter. Why would I deny myself the opportunity to soapbox with my whole heart?

Subscribe now

In political polling, one of the most critical metrics is vote pool: how many people would consider voting for a party and their respective leader? How many are certain to vote for the party? And how many have written it off entirely? Since the fall, when doubt about Poilievre’s leadership reached new heights, I’ve been tracking not only openness to Poilievre and the Conservatives, but also the Conservatives led by a hypothetical someone else. When asked this way, we see two things happen:

• The Conservative vote pool expands by 10-points under a potential other leader – the party goes from 56% of Canadians considering the Conservatives to 66%.

• But at the same time, the CPC base declines by about a third. With Poilievre at the helm, 22% of Canadians are certain to vote Conservative. Under the prospect of a new leader, this declines to 15%. As a point of comparison, 25% of Canadians say they are certain to vote for Mark Carney and the Liberals — a 3-pt gap between him and Poilievre and a 10-pt gap between him and a potential new leader.

This dynamic – the simultaneous opportunity and risk – hasn’t really changed over the past 9 months.

The one thing that has changed is the perceived impact of replacing Poilievre as leader. In short, Poilievre has seen a significant decline in both his strongest allies and his strongest critics. In January, 17% of Conservative voters thought the party would be “much more likely” to win if they replaced Poilievre; today that’s fallen to 10%. There has also been a 7-pt decline in those who think the Conservatives would be “much less likely” to win without Poilievre.

This is one of those scenarios where qualitative research would be extremely helpful. Are Conservative voters simply feeling defeated, given the Liberals’ current strength in the polls? Is this a summer lull and they’re not paying attention to politics? Is it another factor? What we do know is that while more conservative elites might have grabbed their pitchforks, Conservative voters haven’t followed suit.

While we see no increase in appetite to replace Poilievre, most Canadians think Poilievre being forced out of his position is plausible – 11% think this is certain, 21% likely, and 33% think it’s possible. Conservative voters are less likely to think this is a certainty, but just 22% think Poilievre’s leadership is secure.

And now this is where the data gets good. In a hypothetical stacked on top of another hypothetical – if Pierre Poilievre were forced out as leader and then chose to run again – a majority of Conservatives would want him back, more than twice as many as would prefer a new leader.

And of a wide range of Conservative politicians and personalities, Poilievre is far and away the most popular, with 61% of Conservative voters putting him in their list of “most liked” conservatives. This is followed distantly by Stephen Harper (36%) and Doug Ford (29%). However, Ford is polarizing among federal Conservative voters. Nearly as many (22%) dislike the Premier.

So is Poilievre’s “weakened leadership” fake news? Well, no. There’s real intraparty conflict, and many have lost confidence in him. But are Conservative voters feeling the same? That’s a much more difficult case to make. Few are convinced someone could do the job better.

AI disclosure - my data, my thoughts. I didn’t use any AI in the creation of this article.

Subscribe now

Share

As someone who works on campaigns, I was left with the question: what’s changed? How has campaign spending shifted from election to election? Beyond the official campaign period, how has pre-writ (or, as I describe it, out-of-writ) spending changed? What can we learn about how Liberals and Conservatives run campaigns? Basically, what can financial disclosures tell us about different persuasion philosophies?

Subscribe now

For this article, I’ve pulled annual financial disclosures from 2014-2025 (note: the NDP disclosure is not yet available). I’ve also reviewed campaign disclosures from 2004-2025, with a particular focus on campaigns starting in 2015, to examine how in-writ and out-of-writ spending has evolved.

The Conservative Party is a fundraising and spending machine. The headline finding of Benson’s piece is that the Conservatives spent a record-breaking $100 million throughout 2025 (or $98.9 million to be more precise). They also raised an all-time Canadian high of $84.6 million, leaving a $14.3 million debt as they headed into 2026. This is a smaller balance than the party was left with in 2015 (-$22M), but it was the second largest debt recorded for any political party over the past decade.

I’ll leave it to the Conservatives to determine if that degree of overspending was worth it. You could argue that the party will have no trouble paying off this debt (true) and that the party should have put everything it could into this specific election, with a decade's worth of Liberal fatigue to work with (also, strategically, probably true). But they did have a ton of cash on hand. Did they get value for it? Con friends, debate away. The spectacle is so good.

For the past decade, the Liberals have spent pretty close to what they’ve brought in each year. Their biggest debt was $7M in 2015, followed by $1.7M in 2024. In 2025, after its most successful fundraising year ever, the party ended the year with $5.7 million on hand.

If we look solely at campaign (in-writ) spending, we can draw a few conclusions, but 🚨🚨🚨 they would be premature. Firstly, we see a large increase over time in Conservative advertising spending – up $5 million from 2021 and $7 million from 2019. We also see:

• Tour spending up vs. 2019 (+$2.4M) and 2021 (+$4.2M) – not surprising given how central rallies were to the Conservative strategy in 2025.

• Spending on professional services is down significantly – by 70% since 2015 and by $1.8M vs. the 2021 campaign.

• They also spent much less on in-writ research – just $230K throughout the 36-day campaign period. This is $830K less than the party spent on research in 2021, $767K less than in 2019, and $1.15M less than in 2015.

A reminder that the Liberals and Conservatives have the same in-writ spending cap. So while there are differences in spending priorities, they’re not that extreme. But there are a few notable differences:

• The Liberals spent nearly $1.4 million less on advertising. But while the Conservatives broke their own record for highest ad spending in a campaign, the Liberals didn’t. That honour goes to the 2015 campaign.

• The Liberals spent less than the Conservatives on their tour by another million bucks. They also spent less on voter contact.

• But the Liberals spent a lot more on professional services and salaries, and research, although as a share of their campaign budget, this spending has stayed pretty stable since 2015.

Now, you might look at these two previous graphs and think — “oh, these spendy Liberals always prop up the consultant class.” But you would be wrong. The real story is spending outside of the writ.

We’ll start where I’m snoopiest: research and polling. Kory Teneycke used his “hey you” on the most recent Curse of Politics to point out the Conservative campaign’s anemic spending on in-writ research, something he described as “campaign malpractice.”

In-writ research and out-of-writ research do something quite different. In-writ research supports decisions to be made on the fly. It includes focus groups, which provide a read on what’s happening on the ground and how voters are responding to daily news, and they’re also critical for testing advertisements so they can be iterated on and deployed. In-writ research includes nightly tracking – how is the horse race looking? How are impressions of the leaders evolving? And where do we ultimately need to be spending our resources? It also includes riding-level polls, which give greater confidence in whether a seat like, um… Carleton… might be in trouble.

Conversely, research out of the writ mostly supports meta-narrative development – what is the story we’re trying to tell? What is our fundamental contrast? It’s also often used to test hallmark advertisements that are to be deployed pre-writ or in the early stages of the campaign.

Knowing this distinction, you might still call the CPC’s low in-writ research spending malpractice, but don’t be mistaken. The Conservatives spent big money on research. It just happened outside the campaign.

In 2025, the Conservatives spent $3.1 million on research, $2.9 million of which was spent outside of the campaign period. In 2024, they spent $2.5 million. At the time, this was the most the party had spent on research in a year, including during campaign years. And in 2023, the first full calendar year under Poilievre’s leadership, they spent just over a million, $143K shy of what the Liberals spent in all of 2025, a campaign year.

We, unfortunately, don’t know how much of this was spent pre-campaign to prepare for the campaign and frame the early days of Carney’s leadership, and how much was spent after to support Poilievre’s rebrand. But what it suggests to me is a team that heavily prioritizes developing a strategic plan and doesn’t expect to pivot from it. This worked very well when they had a constant, well-known figure (Trudeau) to contrast with, but it left them flat-footed when the dynamic changed. This data also changes what I think about their positioning on Trump. I had originally thought they perhaps missed how Canadians reacted in late 2024/early 2025. But with this level of research spending, I find that hard to believe. I assume they just didn’t internalize it. Those are different things.

Now, on to how this compares to the Liberals. It’s important to first point out that when it comes to both research and advertising spending, the governing party has a massive advantage. The Privy Council Office conducts ongoing polling, and departments can also procure research. This is, of course, non-partisan research, but you don’t have to squint hard to see the relationship between evaluation of the government and political fortunes.

For the entirety of the Trudeau era, and now into Carney’s, the Liberals have spent very little on research outside of campaign periods. Again, this doesn’t mean that they were/are operating blind – they have government research. But it does mean there’s a (in my view) shortage of insights with a partisan lens. To give a relevant point of comparison, the governing Ontario PCs spent just over $2 million in 2025. In one province. I’d argue this lack of partisan research was especially problematic during 2023/2024, as Prime Minister Trudeau’s numbers and Liberal fortunes were cratering and Poilievre was ascending.

But the Liberals did massively outspend the Conservatives during the 2025 campaign – $976K to the Conservatives’ $230K. Having worked on the campaign, I know some of this was formative research that the party didn’t have time to do in between the leadership race and the actual campaign (although the Carney leadership team certainly did their own), and a lot of it was to make the type of on-the-fly decisions I outlined earlier.

How to use research and when to use it is truly becoming an organizational chasm between the Liberals and Conservatives. We see some similarities, but also one major fundamental difference when it comes to professional services more broadly.

Unlike research, the Liberals maintain a base level of out-of-writ spending on professional services, ranging from $1.2 million to $2.5 million. This spending increases during campaign years at a pretty consistent level.

Historically, Conservatives spend a lot (and more than the Liberals) on professional services during campaign years, and this mostly drops off during non-campaign years. The 2015 numbers in particular are 👀👀👀. Some Conservative somewhere: LMK how much of that went to that Aussie guy. But under Poilievre, spending on non-campaign professional services has moved in the same direction as the Liberals.

• In 2023, CPC spent $1.9M, and LPC spent $1.8M

• 2024, CPC spent $3M, and LPC spent $2.4M

• 2025, CPC spent $5.1M outside the campaign, LPC spent $3.9M and another $1.1M in-writ

Professional services can mean a lot of different things, and I don’t have concrete enough details to give an opinion on the merits of either party’s approach. But the trend line is interesting.

While the insights and support of research and professional services are extremely important to effective campaigning, it all means nothing if voters don’t hear from you. And it’s here where the Conservatives, particularly under Poilievre, have demonstrated a massive tactical advantage: they advertise. A lot.

Until Pierre Poilievre became leader, the most substantial ($19M) pre-writ advertising campaign happened in 2015, when the Conservatives aimed to persuade the public that Justin Trudeau was “just not ready.” They also ran pre-writ campaigns in advance of the 2019 and 2021 campaigns. This is now well-established Conservative campaigning. What’s new is extended periods of pre-writ advertising with no election date in sight. The Conservatives spent $8.8M in 2023, another $16.9M in 2024, and $17M in 2025. This is on top of the $22.7M they spent in-writ in 2025. A good era to be a Conservative ad-maker.

Liberal ad spending… does not look like that. The party did its most substantial out-of-writ ad spending in 2024, at $2.3M, and it spent just $381K in 2023. As a reminder, poll aggregations for the beginning of 2023 had the Liberals trailing the Conservatives by 4. By the end of the year, it was -12, and by the end of 2024, it was -23. I… probably woulda run some ads, but water under the bridge, I guess.

What we’re seeing play out is two very different approaches to risk. Backed by their significant war chest, Poilievre’s team has gone full bull-in-china-shop. Research? Field it. Consultants? Sign on the line. Ads? Ship it. Literally no one would be questioning this approach had the Conservatives won. It’d look like a systematic annihilation of the Liberal brand. But that’s not what happened.

On the other side, I think we see a Liberal Party that can be too meek. It puts all its eggs in the in-writ basket. And since they’ve been on a decades-long winning streak, who’s to question it? But had Justin Trudeau stayed on as leader and the party lost as it was set to do, the Libs would be where the Conservatives are right now. Swords swinging. I love politics.

Methodology & AI Disclosure

This report is based on Elections Canada's publicly available financial disclosures. Claude was used to aggregate data into a usable format for data visualizations. Our team cross-referenced the data to ensure it matched the original reports. Analysis, conclusions, and Millennial voice are my own. AI wishes.

Subscribe now

Share

My company, Relay Strategies, was initially built as a qualitative research company. We launched with a signature product, Text Snapshot, which allows us to conduct qualitative research via text message. I’m obviously biased, but I love these interviews.

• They can be deployed extremely quickly. I decided to launch a study while Smith was speaking last night and had quality data within two hours. That includes the time to write the questions. A researcher’s dream.

• We hear from participants in their own words, at vastly higher quality than a survey open-ended response. On average, responses are 3.3x longer, and we don’t have the same issues with… vulgarity… and AI-generated responses.

• Participation is truly accessible. For better and worse, Canadians live much of their lives on their phones. Our messages are delivered to participants’ native messaging apps. They don’t need to create an account, download an app, or check their email. Most just answer when they’re messaged.

For the past couple of months, I’ve been focused on advancing the underlying technology for Text Snapshot, so we can conduct qualitative research that’s truly at scale. Development has been very fun and exciting, but it has zapped the energy I usually put toward the newsletter. But while we’re not quite ready for the BIG ROLLOUT, I do have some ✨pilot data✨ for you today.

Share

Last night, Smith announced that Alberta will be having a referendum… on a potential referendum. We live in stupid and dangerous times, but that’s just MY view. What did Albertans tell me?

I’ll first point out that this is qualitative research; it’s not representative of the broader population. Rather, it’s meant to give a sense of how people react. What words do they use? How emotionally charged are their answers? 35 Albertans completed this interview, and a further 13 completed it in part. We ensured a good mix of participants across gender, age, education, and political identity. This was a pilot project – it was meant to stress test the technology. Had I conducted this for a client, I would have done more interviews to achieve greater breadth. Regardless, there are some really interesting findings and some very tasty quotes.

For about half of the participants, separatism was top of mind and the key way they’re currently assessing the province (and the Premier). When asked how they would describe how things are going in Alberta right now, they said things like:

• A real mess because of the polarization caused by Danielle Smith

• Frustrating, Disappointing, Infuriating. Because we have a useless government that is more concerned about holding onto power, lining the pockets of their friends and themselves, and not doing what is best for all Albertans and Canadians.

• Alberta has a political problem with the right wing and the far right have all the power pretty much all of the time. It leads to arrogance and catering to the fringes when that happens.

• As for myself things are going well but for the province there seems to be a lot of unrest in regard to Alberta separating from Canada.🇨🇦 Our premier certainly has her hands full. I can’t believe people would want to separate.

To some, separatism is just one of a litany of issues on their minds.

• Things in Alberta are tough. Expensive gas, food, utilities. Separatists are making us look bad. We do not want to separate.

• We’re currently focused on energy and oil industry growth, building economy, budget pressure, political tension, and debate on future direction.

Others identified very real and anxiety-provoking issues, primarily around the cost of living and the economy, but separatism wasn’t most on their mind.

• Big problems with the hospital and wait times, the police are very lacking with what they do, the problem with not enough oil field jobs and the homeless crises, being able to find housing and to shop for affordable food.

• Honestly, Alberta feels kind of stressful but also full of opportunity right now. Everything’s getting more expensive like rent, food, and bills, and a lot of people seem unsure about the future. But at the same time, there are still jobs and people keep moving here because there are opportunities you can’t always find in other places

• I would describe Alberta as a housing crisis, unaffordable, too many immigrants and no jobs for our youth. I choose these words because it is so sad to see all the homeless and how our youth are so hopeless. My granddaughter said she doesn’t believe she will ever be able to own her own home. So sad.

• Things are going quite terribly. Nothing is ever getting better and everything is getting worse. It’s impossible to get a job anywhere

While a minority view, a few participants were energized by the prospect of Alberta separatism.

• Things are good. We get our referendum on staying in Canada. I think the Liberals are ruining this country.

• Am positive to vote for separation as a loyal Albertan. Provides more say in the running of government. Opportunity to cut ties with the Federal Government.

• I’m following the Alberta separatism pretty closely, and I’m 100% with Alberta independence. I’m tired of paying high taxes on everything

Most of those who are opposed to separatism feel it in their bones, and they’re frustrated and/or furious that this debate is even taking place.

• It makes me feel the government and the separatists should all be stripped of their citizenships and kicked out of the country and sent packing to the U.S. since they think that cesspit is a better place. For the Albertans who are proud to be Canadian, I appreciate them. For those who think being a part of Canada sucks, then go away. Also makes me think those people are incredibly stupid if they think economically things would be better in any single way as an independent country.

• Follow all of it about separatism. It makes me feel annoyed as it’s crazy to think of not being a part of Canada. I think Alberta needs to come back to common sense

• I’ve been following conversations about the Alberta separatists a little. The issue makes me annoyed. My view of Alberta hasn’t changed but my view on some Albertans has. I see people who want to separate differently. It reminds me of Klans people. If you don’t like it here, move.

Many raised the opportunity cost and wastefulness of the referendum, and of the separatist debate in general.

• [Following the referendum] Relatively closely. It infuriates me because I am a proud Canadian and I also see it as all a smokescreen from the government to hide its deficiencies, to keep people distracted, to waste taxpayers’ money, and to stoke a senseless fight and an unjustified fight with Ottawa.

• Unpredictable, Scary, Divisive, Wrong priorities, Maddening, Wasteful The UCP is wasting money on things we don’t need, like a referendum. As opposed to funding public health Care, education, public transport, etc

• It makes me angry, separatism is awful and the whole thing is a waste of time. It’s made my view worse. It’s a referendum only crazy people asked for

Participants were told, “[Earlier this evening/Yesterday], Premier Smith announced that the province will hold a referendum this fall that asks voters if they want Alberta to remain in Canada or if the government should hold a second, binding referendum asking if the province should begin the formal process of separation. Basically, it will be a referendum on whether to hold a referendum,” and asked about their reaction to the news. In line with their preexisting attitudes, many were deeply annoyed by Smith’s announcement and felt it was risky.

• I think the whole thing is ridiculous. I think it’s a bad move for the province. | Alberta doesn’t need to separate or leave Canada. If you don’t like it here in Canada, move.

• I throw up my hands in angst and disgust. This is bad news. Makes the province look unstable which will scare investors away.

• I am disgusted. The court ruled it was unconstitutional and yet she wants to overturn this decision

• I am very surprised with her reaction because she could have stopped this whole thing herself if she wanted to. I think it was a bad decision on her part because now she has both sides angry at her.

However, even among those opposed to the referendum, some hoped this would kill the issue. At a minimum, some felt that people deserve to have their voices heard.

• Could be good but she is trying to placate both her base and everyone else. She’s proven inept at managing that task and seems to default to her base. Plus she’s hoping no one notices she made the announcement while the committee was still meeting. And she calls the courts undemocratic?

• I think it’s bad in the sense that it’s even gotten this far. However, this is also a chance to nip this in the bud and put the conversation to rest once and for all. In that way it’s good. I firmly believe that Albertans will reject separation.

• I agree with the decision? If that many people want their voices heard out it to a vote.

• I think everyone deserves a voice. But it will not be successful.

One of the clearest findings in the study is how strongly participants believe Danielle Smith is beholden to her base. While some feel like she is personally a separatist, more think she’s simply trying to placate them so she doesn’t lose her job. It’s the riskiest of politics.

• To satisfy her base. All of the above. To remain in power Smith must prevent vote splitting. The conservative vote could potentially be split 3 ways next election with the Alberta Tory Party now on the scene and Peter Guthrie ramping up his social media presence.

• Delay until she can rewrite more laws to satisfy her base? Pretend she’s really not a separatist? Who knows. Guess we’ll have to wait for her next radio show to get the real truth.

• I think she is being pressed to do this by the people behind the referendum question. She is afraid of a leadership fight.

• I think Daniel Smith usually acts on pride and social status like Trump. Also she is a populist and likes to please the voters, but that could quickly change.

• I believe there is some outside influence at play. I think those outside influences seek to divide us. There has always been a small separatist movement here. I think she sees this as her chance to consolidate power.

This idea came up both unprompted and in response to specific explanations of why Smith decided to hold this referendum. Participants were given three possible explanations: “1) It’s her job to uphold the democratic will of Albertans. 300,000 Albertans signed a petition to separate, so she’s respecting their view by holding the referendum. 2) Danielle Smith is personally a separatist, and she wants Alberta to separate from Canada. 3) Danielle Smith is beholden to her separatist supporters, so she’s holding the referendum so she can keep her job.” Participants were then asked which statement they agreed with most. The third explanation was selected most frequently, although her newest announcement appears effective at making people think she might actually be a separatist as well.

My overall take? There are times of elite panic when our media decides an issue is a BIG DEAL, but the general public kind of goes “meh.” This doesn’t seem like one of those issues. As you can feel when reading their responses, those who are opposed are largely piiiiiiiissssssseeeeed. And those who are on the side of the referendum feel righteous in their views. This will be a big collision of values, not just for Politics but for people on the ground as well.

If you’re interested in learning more about how Text Snapshot could help your organization, shoot me an email. I’ve found these interviews especially useful for understanding public reactions to emerging issues, development projects, and community services 👀👀.

Share

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

The Issue Set

For the past year, we’ve described our issue set as a binary: Canadians either care about Trump or the cost of living. This has always been an oversimplification, largely because the cost of living has been the dominant self-reported priority of Canadians for more than a year. Halfway through the campaign (April 14-16), 59% of Canadians said the cost of living was one of their top 3 voting issues, while 39% said the same of dealing with Trump and his threats against Canada. This split was identical (59:38) as voters headed to the polls (Apr. 25-27). By the end of March 2026, when my polling had the Liberals +9, 67% of Canadians said cost of living was one of their top issues, and 25% said the same of dealing with Trump.

Wedged between these two issues is… just look at that… healthcare. 38% of Canadians indicate that this is one of their top 3 voting issues, tied with the cost of housing and the economy. Healthcare is Liberal and Bloc voters’ second-ranked issue, and for NDP voters, it’s tied in second with the cost of housing. Hardly a sleeper issue.

Government is all about tradeoffs. There are few policy domains that Canadians would be comfortable with the government sidelining entirely. But when push comes to shove, what do they prioritize?

In November, I asked Canadians in a forced-choice question if they would rather the government focus on economic measures or the healthcare system. When framed as a choice between growing the economy by investing in business and cutting taxes, or investing in the healthcare system by hiring more doctors and nurses, healthcare wins out 64:36. We see nearly identical results if this is framed as a choice between dealing with the consequences of Trump’s trade war or investing in a healthier population by providing incentives for physical activity, healthy food, and solving the root causes of illnesses. Canadians are evenly divided between their desire to grow the economy by investing in businesses and cutting taxes, and investing in a healthier population.

Assessment of the System

So healthcare is a top priority, but what exactly do Canadians see as the problem? This is where I get to confess a bit of researcher’s regret. I asked Canadians how they would rate Canada’s health system when treating a variety of conditions and caring for different populations. However, I should have also asked about different health outcomes, namely the speed of care. From years of researching healthcare, I know that wait times – whether in emergency care, diagnostic testing, or specialist referral – are the fundamental perceived problem. As one recent focus group participant told me, “When you’re in the system, the care is good. It’s getting in that’s the problem.” With that said, where do Canadians see discrepancies in care?

Canadians feel most positively about the quality of care for pregnancy, cancer, and chronic disease. The middle tier of conditions includes developmental disorders, autoimmune disorders, infertility, reproductive disorders, and menopause. However, many Canadians simply aren’t sure how to assess treatment for those conditions. Canadians are most negative in their assessment of care for substance abuse and mental health disorders. Nearly 4 in 10 Canadians would describe care for those conditions as “poor” or “terrible.”

There are some important differences by gender and age, reflecting life-cycle differences (and probably media consumption as well):

• Overall, young women tend to be the biggest critics of the healthcare system. They have a harsher impression of the quality of care for most conditions tested, especially for mental health. They’re also a lot more likely to be critical of the quality of care for chronic disease, infertility, autoimmune disorders, and pregnancy.

• Women aged 35-64 have the most critical perception of the quality of care for menopause, ~1 in 4 of whom think it’s poor or terrible.

• Seniors - both men and women - tend to be the least negative in their perception of the quality of care overall.

Canadians are most likely to think the healthcare system provides excellent or very good care for children, followed by immigrants. Overall, assessment of the quality of care for men and women is quite similar. By far, Canadians are most negative in their assessment of care for homeless Canadians – nearly half of whom would describe care as somewhat poor or terrible. The other areas of weakness are care for rural residents, Indigenous Canadians, seniors, and people with disabilities.

Liberal voters tend to be more positive about the quality of care for different groups. The exception is the quality of care for immigrants – Conservatives are much more likely to rate care as good or excellent, and, in fact, this is the group Conservative voters think is best cared for. Liberal and Conservative voters have similar (poor) perceptions of the quality of care for Indigenous people.

Women’s Health

Now, to delve back into an aspect of healthcare that I care a lot about: women’s health. While in the aggregate, assessment of the quality of care for women and men looks quite similar, women under 50 have a different perception. 38% of women under 50 believe care for men is excellent or very good, while just 25% would say the same for women. Belief that care is poor or terrible is also 6 points higher among this group. Women older than 50 are also more likely to describe care for women as poor or terrible, but the level is much lower than for women <50 (21% vs 31%).

Additionally, among all Canadians, 56% agree, “When I go to see my doctor, I feel like they take the time to listen to my concerns,” while 30% disagree. However, among women 18-34, 46% agree, and a large plurality (37%) disagrees. Impressions are less negative among women 35 and older.

A large minority of Canadians, 44%, believe Canada’s healthcare system doesn’t invest as much money into understanding women’s health as men’s health. Half of women believe this to be true, compared to 37% of men. It’s also a more left-leaning perspective. 59% of NDP voters think the system neglects women’s health. Fewer, but still ~half, of Liberal and Bloc voters agree.

All that to say – let’s not delude ourselves. Healthcare remains a top priority for Canadians, and their view of the system is pretty dour, especially among young women. If I were… say… an opponent provincial party, I could imagine this might be a fruitful area to interrogate the government’s record. Just for example…. 👀

I expected that the results would look a fair bit different in the general population, and, to an extent, they do. While about 3 in 10 Canadians are pretty optimistic about AI, the vast majority express significant anxieties about the technology. In turn, there’s a strong appetite for government regulation.

In seeing how AI is often talked about – by government, tech, and business – I can’t help but cringe. There’s far too much cheerleading for something that is set to disrupt Canadians’ lives (both in real terms and perception). For the organizations that want AI to advance without societal upheaval, you might want to take a step back and reevaluate. Canadians want to feel like this is controlled change, not something spiraling out of our hands. AI euphoria will kill your brand, whether that’s a consumer-facing brand or a political one.

Before we get to AI, we have a new episode of Culture Lab out today! Our loaded question is: “Is climate action too lib-coded?” Basically, in an era where the focus is on the economy, affordability, and Trump, what happened to the climate movement and how Canadians perceive it? Are the activists seen as too… soft for today’s big-man politics? Does the conversation feel too woke rather than economically oriented? We’re joined by Catherine McKenna, and I’ll just say… it gets spicy. 🌶️

Subscribe now

AI Familiarity and Impact

2 in 3 Canadians say they are at least somewhat familiar with AI, with 20% very familiar. Familiarity decreases with age - those under 35 are 7x more likely than seniors to say they are very familiar with AI.

Familiarity looks comparable across Conservative, Liberal, and NDP voting coalitions. BQ voters are somewhat less likely to report being familiar with it.

In anticipating the personal impacts of AI, Canadians can be split into three roughly equal-sized groups. 30% of Canadians expect AI to improve their lives, 32% expect it to worsen their lives, and 29% expect it to improve and worsen their lives equally. Put another way, 6 in 10 Canadians expect at least some negative consequences for themselves.

Men are more likely than women to anticipate negative consequences. Canadians older than 50 are most likely to think AI will worsen their lives, but substantial portions of Canadians, regardless of age, expect at least mixed results.

Putting AI Into Context

In isolation, this doesn’t seem great. 6 in 10 Canadians expecting AI to worsen their lives in some way is a lot. But how does concern about AI stack up against other things that Canadians are worried about?

Canadians are actually less optimistic about AI’s positive impact on the country than on their own lives – 22% of Canadians think AI companies are having a positive influence on Canada, as compared to the 30% who think AI will improve their life. 35% say AI companies are having a negative impact on Canada, and 30% say the impact has been equally positive and negative.

If we look relative to other groups, AI companies and their tech compatriots, social media companies, are tier-2 villains. The groups Canadians think are having the most negative impact on Canada currently are separatists (Quebec and Alberta) and monopolies. This is followed by refugees, social media companies, AI companies, the top 1% of income earners, and immigrants.

But as you might have expected, who is harming Canada is very much in the eye of the beholder. If you’re a Liberal voter, you’re most likely to say that separatists (Alberta and Quebec), the Conservative Party, and monopolies are negatively impacting Canada. This is followed by the top 1% of income earners, social media companies, and AI companies.

If you’re a Conservative voter, the Liberal Party is your #1 villain - 75% think the party is having a negative impact on Canada, followed by refugees, immigrants, and Quebec separatists (but not Alberta, go figure). This is then followed by monopolies, social media and AI companies, and climate activists.

While AI companies might not be the most feared group today, at least in the US context, this issue is catching fire. In a Blue Rose poll, they found that while AI is ranked 29th out of 39 issues, it has risen in importance more than any other issue over the past year. 🚨🚨🚨

Compared with other companies, the AI companies OpenAI and Anthropic have weak reputations, but in different ways. OpenAI joins TikTok, X/Twitter, and Tesla as the most negatively perceived companies tested. Anthropic is not well known - 43% of Canadians have never heard of the company. OpenAI (and Sam Altman) acting as the industry's banner carrier is a tremendous risk for anyone marketing AI solutions.

AI Concerns

What specifically are Canadians concerned about? Our discourse focuses a lot on the elimination of jobs, and this is certainly one of the top concerns that Canadians have - 3 in 4 are at least somewhat concerned, and 42% are extremely concerned about job losses.

But what AI will do to our information ecosystem is also a top-tier concern. 77% of Canadians are worried about AI being used to spread propaganda or misinformation, and 76% are concerned about it being used to provide people with incorrect information.

After this is the human/relational toll: people becoming lazy (71%) or stupid (68%), and replacing real-world relationships with AI (71%). In tough news for environmental activists, AI’s impact on the environment ranks as the lowest concern.

Women are more likely than men to be “extremely worried” about every item tested. There are also some important differences by age. Seniors are most likely to be extremely worried about risks to our information environment, including providing people with incorrect information (50% extremely worried), AI being used to spread propaganda or misinformation (53%), their information being used to target them with ads (43%), and AI companies having access to their thoughts and ideas (41%). Canadians under 35 are the most likely to be worried about AI’s impact on the environment (31% extremely worried).

Comparison to Social Media

Our public conversation has focused heavily on AI lately, but Canadians perceive the risks of social media similarly. Just as many Canadians are worried about social media providing people with incorrect information, or being used to spread propaganda or misinformation. Secondary concerns are worsened mental health, worsened academic performance of children and youth, worsened ability to focus, and people replacing real-world relationships with social media.

Perceptions of both AI and social media reflect Canadians' concerns about online (mis)information in general. 74% of Canadians say they often see AI-generated content online. Canadians under 35 are almost twice as likely as seniors to strongly agree with this statement (49% 18-34, 39% 35-49, 36% 50-74, 27% 65+).

2 in 3 Canadians agree that when keeping up with the news, it’s hard to know what to believe, and that they often see political misinformation online. At the same time, 67% think they have a good radar for what’s real and what’s fake information, but only 22% strongly agree with this idea.

Far from only being a Trumpian figment, 57% of Canadians say they often see fake news from mainstream news organizations. Conservative voters (28%) are much more likely to strongly agree with this idea than Liberal (16%) or NDP (15%) voters.

Demand for Regulation

While concern about AI and social media is widely held, very few Canadians see government action on it. Just 16% of Canadians say they have heard of the Government of Canada doing something to regulate AI. However, 2 in 3 Canadians would support the government stepping in. Support is much higher among seniors, which means that it’s through the roof for Liberal Party voters (79%). However, even 6 in 10 Conservative voters support government regulation of AI.

Canadians are a bit more likely to say they have heard about the government regulating social media companies, but still, only 24% of Canadians say they have heard about this. Support for government regulation of social media is the same as for AI, and follows the same pattern in terms of who supports intervention. It’s more likely to be women, older folks, and Liberals.

On both fronts, AI and social media, there is tremendous unmet demand for government intervention.

The Politics of Control

So, where does this net out? In our current political environment, you can look at this issue in two ways.

There’s the here and now. This is a technology that’s perceived as carrying significant unchecked risk. Canadians are worried about how this will affect our brains, the information we put into them, and our ability to… earn a living. Pretty existential stuff. Even if we think of this occurring in isolation, there’s enough pent-up voter demand to warrant changes in how government and companies speak about this issue, how government regulates the industry, and how companies behave regarding user safety. The status quo is not stable, and all signs point to it becoming less so as the debate around AI, data centres, and their economic impact evolves.

But the rapid change caused by AI isn’t happening in isolation. It’s just one more thing to fuel a populist backlash, as we’ve seen with the other issues. On the right, it’s immigration, crime, climate change, and COVID. On the left, it’s anti-corporate sentiment and opposition to resource development. Layered over all of this is discontent with the cost of living. An anti-AI backlash can (and I predict will) easily find a home across the political spectrum.

The common element across these issues is a lack of control. When voters feel like the government doesn’t have it, that they’ve let an issue spiral, they will seek a severe solution. Canadians have already seen social media run largely unchecked, a trend that has primed them for the AI conversation. If the government and private sector want AI to achieve its full economic promise, they will need to meet Canadians where they are. And that place is skepticism. Concerns won’t be alleviated by utopian proclamations – EVERYTHING WILL BE AMAZING, AREN’T YOU CONVINCED? Rather, Canadians need to know that those in charge 1) see the same risks, 2) take those risks extremely seriously, and 3) will act to mitigate those risks, even if it runs opposite to economic self-interest.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share

Since the election, we’ve seen a shorthand for our political environment take root. When Trump goes Trumpy, the Liberals soar, and when the cost of living surges in issue salience, the Conservatives rebound. I’ve argued before (for example) that I think this is… kind of a bs, because my polling has always shown that in a forced choice between Carney and Poilievre, Carney is more trusted to deal with the cost of living. Further:

• On the eve of the election (Apr 25-27), 59% of Canadians said the cost of living was one of their top 3 issues, 38% said it was Dealing with Donald Trump and his threats against Canada; the Liberals won by 2.5 points on the 28th

• Nov 7-9: 69% chose cost of living, 27% chose Trump, Liberals led by 3

• Jan 9-11: 66% chose cost of living, 25% chose Trump, Liberals led by 3

Subscribe now

And today (or poll dates, Mar 27-29), 67% of Canadians say their top issue is the cost of living, 25% say it’s dealing with Trump (a 3rd-tier issue), and the Liberals are leading by 11. As is often the case, the story is not so simple.

Any way you cut it, the Liberals have a leadership advantage. Carney continues to provide a lift to the party – 49% of Canadians have a favourable view of Carney, while 43% have a favourable view of the Liberal Party. The inverse is true for the Conservatives. The party (37%) is more popular than Poilievre (35%), and more importantly, its negatives are lower (-4).

While leadership is supreme, the party brands do matter. In this poll, I wanted to stress-test my understanding of who commands different issues and see if there are areas of Conservative supremacy that might foreshadow trouble for the government.

I a/b tested two questions: one asks which leader would be best to manage the following issues, and the other asks which party. I also wanted to give cynics and the less informed a chance to say there’d be no difference or that they’re not sure, which I didn’t offer in past polling.

When looking at party leaders, it’s a sweep. Carney dominates every issue, outflanking Poilievre most significantly on:

• Representing Canada on the world stage (+22)

• Managing the current economic crisis caused by Trump’s tariffs (+22)

• Navigating global conflicts (+19)

• Bringing Canadians together (+17)

• Bringing stability to Canada (+16)

Notably, Poilievre trails his vote (29%, using vote intention before undecided voters are suppressed to allow for an apples-to-apples comparison) on all but 4 issues: bringing stability, bringing positive change, creating jobs, and the cost-of-living crisis.

But the big question is, does the Conservative brand dominate in any area? If voters look past the leaders, what do they see?

The Carney strengths in dealing with an unstable world extend to the Liberal Party. The Liberals are also dominant in healthcare (+9), as expected. It’s very rare for any conservative party to be perceived as superior in service delivery.

However, conservatives tend to have inherent brand strengths in economic management. While the gap is closer than when looking at leaders, the LPC is outperforming the CPC. The Liberal Party is +5 over the Conservatives on dealing with the cost-of-living crisis, and +3 on creating jobs. This is, bluntly, a disaster for the CPC team.

Interestingly, the Liberals are just +4 on dealing with Alberta separatism but +8 on dealing with Quebec.

The graphs below summarize these two questions. Carney provides the greatest lift for representing Canada on the world stage (+6 over the party), dealing with the economic crisis caused by Trump (+6), bringing stability (+6), bringing Canadians together (+6), and creating jobs (+6).

Poilievre most tracks below his party on bringing positive change (-4), creating jobs (-3), and dealing with Trump’s tariffs (-3).

Of course, this isn’t only a 2-way race, and we have a new (!) party leader to contend with. Testing issue advantages among other parties feels less relevant because… people know the NDP and Bloc won’t govern. But values are important. When we factor in other parties, the Liberals lead on representing Canadian values and supporting women. The Liberals and Conservatives are competitive on representing your values, understanding people like you, standing up for your region, and fighting for the working class. Notably, this last item remains a relative strength for the NDP, representing 3x their current share of the vote.

This might be all fine and dandy for now, but Poilievre has famously (at least in Ottawa) been embarking on a rebrand tour. Are we seeing any movement in the underliers to suggest it’s working? Yes and no.

Poilievre’s favourability has been quite stable. He had a net-favourability score of -6 in November, -9 in January, and -7 at the end of March.

When we ask Canadians directly if they’ve seen a more positive view of Poilievre lately, we see more agreement than disagreement: 46% agree he has been showing a more positive side of himself lately, and 44% think he has improved as a politician since the last election. A lot of this comes from Conservatives (~8 in 10 agree with each statement), but 30% of Liberals, and 40% of Bloc, and 24% of NDP voters also agree that he’s been showing a more positive side lately.

The complicating factor for the Conservatives is that more Canadians feel they’ve seen a positive side of Carney lately: 53% think he has been showing a more positive side lately, and the same proportion think he has improved as a politician since the last election.

So, back to the convention. I generally feel like a schoolmarm when I see Liberals enjoying political highs. Arrogance is poison in politics (and probably life), but for this one weekend only: have fun. The vibes are good, and they won’t last forever. But if this polling is any indication, it could last for a while.

And also, come say hi! 👋

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

I asked Canadians, “Do you support or oppose MPs joining the Liberals so they have a majority government and Canada has more stability?” and found that support outweighs opposition 45:33, while 22% aren’t sure either way. I’ve now tracked this over a few polls, and topline numbers have been quite stable. In November, 46% of Canadians supported floor crossing to bring stability, and 48% supported it in January.

Results under the surface are a lot more interesting. Liberals are now so dominant in the polls - sitting at 44% in this survey (33% CPC, 7% BQ, 6% NDP, 4% GP, 3% PPC, 3% Other) - that the government only really needs to be concerned about those who are already planning to vote for the party. To Liberal voters, the government achieving a majority through floor crossing is uncontentious. It receives 80% support. Strong support is down a touch (-4) since November, but overall support has been stable.

But the opposition parties are starting to get more salty. Strong opposition among Conservatives in November was 41%. Today it’s 51%. I’ll caution: we’re looking at small sub-samples of Bloc and NDP voters, so don’t take this data as gospel. But they’re trending much less positively on the Liberals achieving a majority through floor crossing as well.

How is this impacting Carney and Poilievre’s personal brands? After Idlout crossed the floor, 38% of Canadians said the 4 floor crossings to date improved their impression of Mark Carney, 21% said it worsened their impression, and 27% said it made no impact on their view of the PM. Liberals tended to have their view reinforced – 69% said it improved their impression of Carney, while 45% of Conservatives said it gave them a worse impression of the PM.

Poilievre comes out of the floor crossings more banged up (in public opinion terms and otherwise). 29% of Canadians say these floor crossings worsened their impression of Poilievre, but much of this comes from Liberals (45%). Will floor crossings break Poilievre’s hold on the party? At least among his voters, no. 15% of Conservative voters said the floor crossings worsened their opinion of Poilievre, 26% said their opinion improved, and 47% said the floor crossings had no impact.

So, can we expect a backlash? Not today. What’s more interesting is whether this will change enthusiasm in next week’s byelections. Voter turnout in advanced polls in Terrebonne has been high (for a byelection). We’ll see if that tapers off now that the stakes look different.

Subscribe now

Share

Starting with: why did I break the data out by LPC voters instead of OLP? Quite simply, sample size. More data = more reliable results. Additionally, examining LPC voters provides a broader view of people who should be in the OLP voter universe. It answers who is most engaging among people who could help the party win.

Looking at OLP voters gets us closer to who could decide a leadership race. While these folks are more aligned with the provincial party, they’re still not representative of OLP members. This data doesn’t tell us how voting members feel.

Keeping in mind that a random sample of n=165 would have an 8-point margin of error, the most interesting candidates among OLP voters are Nate Erskine-Smith, Lee Fairclough, and Dylan Marando. They’re followed closely by Vikram Handa and Rob Cerjanec, then Eric Lombardi and Navdeep Bains.

Leadership races are, of course, an organizing effort. I’ve broken down interest in these candidates by demographic group to show what their coalitions could look like. These results are among all Ontarians (once again, sample size), not just Liberals. However, they’re still helpful for identifying patterns.

Women are more interested in all of these candidates than are men. That shouldn’t come as a surprise - we’re talking about the Ontario Liberal Party after all. However, this gap is especially pronounced for Lee Fairclough and Nate Erskine-Smith, both of whom are “interesting” to more than half of Ontario women.

Voters younger than 50 show very little distinction between candidates, except for Navdeep Bains. They’re all equally interesting. The hierarchy established earlier, with Fairclough and Erskine-Smith at the top, plays out among voters aged 50+.

Given that housing is a top issue in Ontario, and several of the candidates’ bios referenced work on the housing file, I was curious if renters (or people who live with family) could drive support for any particular candidate. With the exception of Eric Lombardi, homeowners are more interested in all of the candidates than non-owners. Those who do not own their home are slightly more likely than owners to be interested in Lombardi. Among this group, he’s statistically tied with Handa, Cerjanec, and Marando.

Lastly, how are immigrant communities feeling? I can only answer this in a semi-helpful way. I didn’t ask about race, ethnicity, or religion in this survey, but I did ask whether respondents are 1st-, 2nd-, or 3rd-generation Canadians. All candidates are of greater interest to 1st- and 2nd-Generation Canadians than to 3rd-Generation. This is especially true for Nate Erskine Smith (+18 among 1st Gen, +10 among 2nd Gen), Navdeep Bains (+15, +16), Dylan Marando (+14, +16), and Eric Lombardi (+12, +17).

OK, back to my mini eggs…

Subscribe now

Share

Subscribe now

As I’ve written before, this is a race people should want to hop into. Today, just 41% of Ontarians think things are on the “right track” in the province, 10% fewer than those who think the country is on the right track (51%). There’s also a significant appetite for change - 2 in 3 Ontarians agree “it’s time for a change in government in Ontario,” including 37% who strongly agree.

So who is catching Ontarians’ eye? Or more accurately, who could?

Survey respondents were shown photos and condensed bios for 8 potential candidates. Among Liberal voters, Lee Fairclough and Nate Erskine-Smith are viewed as most interesting - both with 74% of Liberals saying these candidates seem “very” or “somewhat interesting.” Tier 2 includes Dylan Marando (68%), Vikram Handa (65%), and Rob Cerjanec (65%). This group is followed by Eric Lombardi at 57%.

I included my podcast co-host, Gabe De Roche, as a benchmark for an unknown candidate (and maybe for a little podcast lol). 48% of LPC voters say they’d be interested in his candidacy, statistically tied with Navdeep Bains at 46%.

When forced to choose who stood out the most, the same pattern repeats. While Erskine-Smith and Fairclough are top choices among Liberal voters, there’s far from a consensus view. This feels like an open fight among Liberal voters, especially considering just 19% have heard “a great deal” about the OLP leadership race, 42% have heard “something”, and 39% have heard “nothing” about it. We’ll see how open the race is among Liberal members.

Methodology

This survey was self-funded by Relay Strategies. The survey was fielded online via the Cint platform from March 27-29, 2026, among n=842 Ontarians, including n=344 Liberal voters. Online polls do not support the reporting of the margin of error. The images and bios used for candidate testing are included below.

Nate Erskine-Smith

• Member of Parliament for Beaches–East York (Toronto) since 2015

• Ran for the Ontario Liberal Leadership in 2023 against Bonnie Crombie

• Minister of Housing, Infrastructure, and Communities from 2024-2025

• Lawyer prior to entering politics

Lee Fairclough

• Member of Provincial Parliament for Etobicoke—Lakeshore since 2025

• Served as the President of St. Mary’s General Hospital from 2019–2022

• Former Vice-President at Health Quality Ontario and worked at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre

Vikram Handa

• Chief Operating Officer of Maya Group, a housing provider in Toronto

• Human rights lawyer

• Commentator focused on economic justice and tax reform

Rob Cerjanec

• Member of Provincial Parliament for Ajax since 2025

• Previously a business consultant

• Was on the Durham District School Board

* We have since learned Cerjanec was on the senior leadership team at the Durham District School Board and was not on the Board. Our apologies for the error.

Eric Lombardi

• Prominent housing advocate and urban policy commentator in Toronto

• Co-founder and President of More Neighbours Toronto

• Management consultant specializing in financial services

Dylan Marando

• Senior policy professional and healthcare executive

• Former Deputy Director of Policy for Prime Minister Trudeau

• Holds a PhD in political science and was a fellow at the University of Toronto

Navdeep Bains

• Chief Corporate Affairs Officer for Rogers Communications since 2023

• Former Minister of Innovation, Science, and Industry from 2015 to 2021

• Member of Parliament for Mississauga–Malton for over a decade

Gabriel De Roche

• Political scientist

• Climate change and healthcare expert

• Podcast host and opera singer

Share

Leave a comment

I previewed today’s data during our most recent Culture Lab episode, which features Head of Polling at Change Research, Stephen Clermont. In the episode, we give a brief (subjective) overview of the use of big data in Democratic politics, and why we’re seeing a bit of a backlash to how the Dems find messages that “work.” Check it out!

Subscribe now

During COVID, it became evident how quickly trust in our medical system (and science in general) can be eroded. The infrastructure for spreading misinformation (i.e. social media and content creators) remains well-intact and is finding new foods and standards of care to vilify on the regular.

The challenge of asking about misinformation and disinformation is that it’s hard to self-assess. If you’ve been persuaded by something, you don’t want to say, “Why, yes, I’ve been the victim of misinformation online.” There’s also the issue of people labeling things they disagree with as misinformation (fake news, anyone?). One way around this is to poke at the undercurrents of distrust. Can we see the impacts, even if individuals don’t see it themselves?

Let’s start with assessments of the medical establishment. Respondents were asked on a 5-point scale if, when it comes to healthcare, they 1 - believe in science and what experts tell me, or 5-that conventional or western medicine gets a lot wrong. The belief in science became a values statement of sorts during the pandemic, and we can see some of the cleavages that existed during the pandemic re-emerge here.

Overall, half of Canadians register pro-science positions - 29% of whom fully agree that they believe in science and what experts tell them. Just 10% fully believe that conventional or western medicine gets a lot wrong, and a further 10% lean in that direction. As an opinion researcher, I’m most interested in the 31% who agree with both positions equally. What does that look like in practice? What does that mean for their behaviour?

Bloc and Liberal voters are most likely to strongly identify with experts and the scientific consensus, more than twice as many as Conservative voters. There is much more diversity of opinion within the Conservative coalition: 39% lean toward science, 28% lean toward system critique, and 34% are right in the middle.

Much of this is a function of education and age. Those with a university education are the most pro-science. Those under 35 and seniors tend to hold more pro-science views, while middle-aged Canadians are more skeptical.

Doctors and nurses are far and away the most broadly-trusted medical professionals tested. All groups tested receive net-positive trust, although pharmaceutical companies and naturopaths are the least trusted overall.

Seniors show much greater trust in doctors (48% “totally trust”) and nurses (40%) than other generations. We see relatively little difference in degrees of trust for Health Canada and respondents’ provincial health agencies. Young Canadians (<35) are much more likely to “totally trust” chiropractors, and those under 50 show relatively greater trust in mental health practitioners and naturopaths.

Canadians are most likely to be “very concerned” about the lack of access to a family doctor. Additional top-tier concerns are closely related to online conversations: chemicals in our food, medical misinformation, and doctors not seeking the root causes of illnesses. This isn’t to say that any concerns about chemicals or doctors not trying to find the root cause of illnesses are necessarily driven by misinformation (although they can be), but it shows a degree of skepticism that doesn’t register when you ask about trust in doctors in general.

Other issues that are heavily discussed online also receive significant degrees of concern, including food and products impacting our hormones (64% concerned), doctors overprescribing medicines (60%), the use of Ozempic and other weight loss medications (53%), decreasing fertility (45%), mRNA vaccines (42%), and women being on birth control (35%).

Women are much more likely to be “very concerned” about lack of access to a family doctor, the prevalence of depression and mental health problems, and the lack of access to mental health support. They’re also more likely to be “very concerned” about doctors not trying to find the root cause of illnesses, the lack of local food, and women being on birth control. The only area with more men “very concerned” is decreasing fertility.

Among women, we see a huge generational gap on some of these items, particularly as it pertains to birth control and decreasing fertility. Both issues are far more likely to concern women under 50, especially those younger than 35. Young women are nearly evenly divided on birth control – 45% are concerned, and 47% are not.

Part of this heightened concern can likely be explained by life stage; some of it is probably due to personal experience. I’d wager a lot of it is the social media landscape. If you’re a young-ish woman on the Internet, it doesn’t take long before you start learning of the many, many supposed dangers of birth control. Unrelated to the diminishment of reproductive rights in the US, right? Not so much. The health and wellness space is the entry point for far-right messaging for so many young women and girls. If you don’t trust your doctor, what can you trust?

As I said on the podcast: feminists (and doctors, hospitals, medical associations, etc.) - take note! The pill needs a champion!

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

For the past few years, both in Canada and the US, we’ve been stuck in a predictable generational panic. There is always something that the youngs are doing wrong, or that signals the end of civilization as we know it. In this case, it’s the story that young voters are overwhelmingly conservative.

Narratives get settled and are stubbornly slow to be updated. Much of our understanding of young Canadians’ political attitudes was set before Justin Trudeau’s resignation, when he was down by 20+ points in the polls. On top of that, we see a constant stream of online discourse arguing that Gen Z has lost its mind – they’re all tradwives, looksmaxxers, and Andrew Tate devotees. Our awareness of these trends exists for a reason. X, TikTok, and YouTube serve creators with extreme views on a platter. But this isn’t the story of the median young Canadian.

In September of 2024, yes, the Conservatives were dominant among voters aged 18-34. They had a 24-point lead across the entire age group, a 35-point lead among young men, and a 7-point lead over the NDP among young women, while the Liberals were in 3rd place.

Today, the race among young Canadians is at a minimum competitive, if not leaning Liberal. In my January polling, the Liberals were +3 among this age cohort. The polls have widened since then, so I assume the Liberal lead among young voters has widened as well.

I’ve said it once, I’ll say it 100 times. It’s almost irrelevant to look at the political views of different age cohorts, particularly young voters, without intersecting them with gender. The way that young voters’ preferences have shifted has been striking.

As of January, the Conservatives led among young men (5%), but that advantage had declined by 16-points since September 2024. Conversely, the Liberals had an 11-point lead among young women in January. Liberal strength among young women comes much more from the NDP, which has suffered a 15-point decline, rather than the Conservatives, which were down 6 points since September 2024.

I’ll also point out that while the sample sizes for the January poll aren’t huge, I did conduct a large survey of n=2376 young Canadians in November, and these same trends hold.

This enormous shift from fall 2024 to today plays out among other pollsters as well:

• Léger went from CPC +14 in September 2024 to +1 for the Liberals in January 2026

• Ipsos went from CPC +15 in September 2024 to +2 in December 2025

• We’ve seen greater variability in the Abacus numbers, which is why I’m showing both their January and February data. It’s not unexpected to see some degree of volatility when tracking subsets; they’re smaller sample sizes after all. Still, in September 2024, they had the Conservatives +23 among voters aged 18-29, and their latest release had the Liberals +10.

Consider the dynamic changed.

We’ve time-hopped significantly, looking from fall 2024 to now. But I want to pause on what the polls were showing leading up to the election. Despite widespread reporting that the Conservatives dominated the Liberals among young voters in the last election, polling was actually mixed.

• I had the CPC +3 in the last few days of the campaign.

• Ipsos and Liaison Strategies had the CPC and LPC tied in their last campaign polls.

• Abacus Data had Liberals +8 among 18-29 year olds in their April 18-21 survey.

• And while not included in the visual here (their crosstabs are behind a paywall), Nanos reportedly had the CPC +13 among 18-34 year olds.

This isn’t to say that conservatism doesn’t exist among young people, or that the way it’s manifesting doesn’t look different from past generations. I do a lot of qualitative research, and I certainly hear a different discourse around gender roles, immigration, and “wokeism” than what I heard 10 years ago. But I would enter a few other descriptors into your young voters’ vocabulary: fickle, jaded, and not especially partisan.

One of the most stunning pieces of data from a comprehensive poll of young Canadians I conducted in November showed how many were actually fine with both Poilievre and Carney. At that time, 44% of young Canadians said they had a favourable or neutral view of both Carney and Poilievre. Just 20% liked Carney but disliked Poilievre, and 16% had a favourable view of Poilievre and an unfavourable view of Carney. This is vastly different from older Canadians, particularly seniors.

I can point to tactics and messaging that show Poilievre’s focus on young Canadians. However, this hasn’t resulted in a significant brand advantage over Carney. In November, 44% of young Canadians agreed “Pierre Poilievre is fighting to make life better for young Canadians,” while 43% said the same of Mark Carney. There was a smidge more strong agreement that Poilievre is fighting for young people, but this difference is subtle. It’s basically a tie.

It’s always important to remember that horse race numbers (and election results for that matter) aren’t especially good indicators of values or underlying attitudes. My friend and former colleague, Stephen Clermont, wrote a great piece on this in November. In the article, he wrote:

All too often when trying to understand where American voters are, we get trapped by recency bias. The last election supposedly gives us a definitive path for where people want the country to go. Sometimes though, an election is just an election and tells us nothing about the future, just that one person beat another person.

When Poilievre was +25 among young Canadians, it didn’t mean this generation was deeply and rigidly conservative. As today’s polls show, that’s clearly not the case. It also didn’t show that they had some widespread great love for Pierre Poilievre. Rather, it reflected widespread, multi-generational fatigue with Justin Trudeau’s government. This exasperation meant something different to young voters, as most had never experienced another government as adults. The Trudeau Liberals represented a status quo that was not working for them; they wanted change. It’s just that deep.

So, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PLEASE STOP SAYING YOUNG CANADIANS ARE OVERWHELMINGLY CONSERVATIVE. You’re wrong now, and you were never really right.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

This data I’ve cited in this article is a bit old. It was collected in October 2025 and I haven’t been tracking the Ontario dynamic super closely over the past few months. But in Angus Reid tracking, Ford was at 41% approval in September, and 34% if their most recent December release. Abacus Data found the PC’s approval has declined 6-points since JANUARY, and disapproval has increased by a similar margin. In their latest average, 338Canada has the PCs at 45%, OLP 29%, and NDP at 19%. That’s 2-points lower for the PCs vs 338’s October update. All of that to say, I wouldn’t expect this data to be more positive for Ford if it had been collected today.

I led the research for the 2018 OLP campaign and at that time, the worst thing we could say about Ford was that he was a bully. This feels laughable today. Watching past footage of him on Toronto City Council feels like a case of body-snatching. His Premier persona is nothing like DoFo 1.0.

Since the pandemic, there’s been a narrative surrounding Doug Ford that he’s just kind of a likeable guy and that’s what voters are responding to. My data shows that’s only somewhat true. Of the leadership narratives tested, Ontarians are most likely to agree (72%) that “Ford seems to enjoy the public profile that comes with being Premier.” Far fewer, but still half, of Ontarians agree that “regardless of politics, Doug Ford seems like a likeable guy.” However, just 16% strongly agree with this idea, and more (20%) strongly disagree. Even fewer agree that “Ford has been a true leader for Ontario” (43% agree, 15% strongly). Basically, there’s a huge gap between assessment of Ford’s political performance and true leadership and likability.

Ontarians are also very likely to see a deficit when it comes to results: 59% of Ontarians agree, “the only thing Doug Ford seems to ‘get done’ is making it easier to buy beer,” and 57% agree “Ford promised to ‘get it done’ but nothing has gotten better under his leadership.” Importantly, his strong defenders are few; only about 1 in 10 Ontarians strongly disagree with these ideas.

A majority (57%) of Ontarians do believe that Ford has been deeply focused on trade issues with the US, but that majority doesn’t extend to other issues. Just 30% think he’s deeply focused on healthcare and 30% strongly disagree with this idea. Half of Ontarians agree that while “Doug Ford is a good spokesperson, but he’s not someone who learns the ins and outs of policy.” Again, performance vs. reality.

While criticizing Ford’s outcomes is the stronger of the two arguments, half (51%) of Ontarians agree that “Ford is a corrupt politician who only cares about doing favours for his buddies.”

The data’s a lot worse when we look at individual policy files. Only:

• 16% of Ontarians think that the cost of living has improved under Ford

• 16% say the same of housing

• 16% homelessness

• 20% healthcare

• 20% life of the average Ontarian

• 22% crime

• 22% the economy

Making it easier to buy alcohol is the government’s greatest perceived strength (55%). This is followed by transportation infrastructure but still, just 26% think public transit has improved, and 33% say the same of roads and highways.

At the PCs’ current support level, the Liberals need their voters to migrate. PC voters, while less negative overall, see the same strengths (alcohol, infrastructure) and weaknesses (cost of living, housing, homelessness) as the general population. Even among his own voters, just 23% think the cost of living has improved under Ford. Yikes.

Is this enough to foster a true “time for a change” atmosphere? I’m not sure, but the foundation is good and we’re still 3 years away from the next election and 9 months from a new OLP leader.

So, chin up, Liberals! And if you’re a talented Liberal who is thinking about taking the plunge: Do it!

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share

I wasn’t surprised by the result. We didn’t see any organizing against Poilievre. As my polling from the fall showed, most of the Party’s voters don’t have a personal problem with Poilievre, even if 4 in 10 CPC voters believed at the time that the party would be more likely to win without Poilievre as leader. However, no one was willing to drive that argument.

Subscribe now

Until further evidence to the contrary, I’ll believe that the party and caucus are united behind Poilievre. But for the past year, particularly in the past few months, I’ve been watching a different type of division among conservatives: The battle of some mainstream (Harper-era) Conservatives vs. the Twittered Right™, my term for the hyper-online, Trump/convoy/anti-vax/separatist-y contingent of the Conservative base. Depending on how you define it, this group makes up 20-30% of Conservative voters, but feels like 90% of my algorithm on Elon Musk’s Twitter. Man, that place is unpleasant.

If this group represents only 20-30% of the 35-40% of Canadians who plan to vote CPC, why do they matter? Well, 1) they’re energized and take up a lot of space in the conversation, especially on social media, and 2) these are the people who could be tempted by the People’s Party under the right conditions. In a polarized environment where the NDP is weak and Poilievre has high unfavourables, the CPC needs these voters.

So that brings me back to Jason Kenney, the useful hook for this article 👀. I started noticing something interesting about a year ago when Kenney appeared on the Paul Wells podcast (RIP, the podcast, not Paul Wells). In that interview, he spoke candidly about right-wing extremism and online spaces. This was notable because, especially before the last election, I’d never heard mainstream Conservatives admit that right-wing misinformation even existed, much less push back against it. As I’ve written before, I think Poilievre has been not only too permissive of this group but also an active contributor to misinformation to the detriment of his broader appeal.

I’ve since noticed folks like James Moore (former Harper cabinet minister), Dimitris Soudas (former Harper Director of Communications), and a few others here and there be, not necessarily antagonistic toward this group of voters, but assert their values in a way that feels very not of this era. Of course, they’re not seeking public office, and the Twittered Right is also at least partially responsible for the end/pause of Jason Kenney’s political career, so the stakes are entirely different. But I’ve seen them speak out on Trump, separatism, and online toxicity more generally in a way that’s pretty brave (see note on X being miserable) and politically astute.

In my polling, 24% of Conservative voters say they are on Twitter/X. This compares to 70% who are on YouTube, 69% on Facebook, 45% on Instagram, and 30% on TikTok. While the Conservatives are extremely competent at leveraging the Meta platforms, and have a HUGE strategic advantage over other parties on YouTube, Twitter still seems to take up an inordinate amount of time for some MPs, given its reach.

All platforms foster echochambers. As a citizen, it’s deeply alarming. As a consumer, I’ve never been more entertained, so I guess there’s that 🫠. But my polling finds some very *fun* ways that conservatives on Twitter differ from those who aren’t. This is a good juncture to point out correlation ≠ causation. Just because opinions are different doesn’t mean Twitter/X is necessarily the cause.

Starting with domestic conservatives: CPC voters on Twitter are more likely than those not on the platform to have favourable impressions of Poilievre (+10) and Danielle Smith (+18). However, they have a much worse impression of Doug Ford, and actually have a net-negative evaluation of the Premier (-7). Conservatives not on Twitter tend to like Ford or have a neutral impression of him.

Looking at Liberals, evaluations of Trudeau vary little among those who are and are not on Twitter, but Conservative Twitter shows much more animosity toward Mark Carney (57% very unfavourable, compared to 44% of CPC voters not on Twitter).

One of the most - maybe not surprising, but validating - findings is the difference re: Trump. Conservatives not on Twitter (again, ¾ of their vote) are vastly more likely to have a very unfavourable impression of Trump (48%, vs. 27% on Twitter). Those on Twitter are quite divided; 41% have a favourable view, and 45% have an unfavourable view of Trump.

The Russian government has effectively leveraged social media, particularly Twitter/X, for its misinformation campaigns, and this seems to be reflected in the data. While Conservatives on X do have more negative than positive views of Putin, his “very unfavourables” are much lower (44% vs. 56%). The more significant impact is on impressions of Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Conservatives on Twitter are much less likely to have a favourable impression of the leader (17%, vs 26%) and are dramatically more likely to have an unfavourable view of him (48%, vs 28%, including 36% with a very unfavourable impression). This trend exists not just among Conservatives but also among the general population.

If you’ve made it this far, you’ve gotten the gist of my argument: Elon Musk’s Twitter sucks. More than ever, it caters to those with the harshest views and tone. We used to describe social media as being “not real.” That’s not a view I share. Rather, we’re all in different, but very real realities. It’s what makes personal conviction important. And hey, if you don’t have that, there’s always polls. (Just kidding, even if you do have personal conviction, you should still use polls).

Behind this paywall, you’ll find an expansive data dump, including: [paywall has since been removed, bid for support remains ;)]

• Social and traditional media usage by vote and age

• The gap in favourability for each medium’s audience

• The favourability of each leader by medium

Your subscription helps offset some of the cost of data collection for this newsletter. If my work helps you do your work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

One of the things that I harp on over and over again, and it always catches people by surprise, is that YouTube is the most high-value medium today. It’s not only commonly used by young people; YouTube has also experienced significant growth across all ages. It’s tied for 2nd place among seniors, alongside Facebook and cable TV.

For those 18-34, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok are the most popular. TikTok is less dominant among those older than 35, especially older than 50, but YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram remain extremely relevant.

Cable TV, including cable news, is really only relevant among those older than 50, particularly seniors. Just 17% of Canadians say that they regularly access newspapers. This peaks among seniors, but is still just 29% of that age group.

Partisan differences are subtle. YouTube and Facebook are dominant for each party’s supporters. Owing to the party’s age and education skew, Liberals are also more likely to watch cable TV, including cable news, and to read newspapers. NDP voters are a lot more likely to be on Reddit and Snapchat. Bloc voters are more likely to watch cable news and read newspapers.

How echo-chamber-y are the different platforms? The following visual is a bit complex, so bear with me. Net favourability (favourable-unfavourable) scores were calculated for each channel's audience and for those who are not part of that audience. Those two figures were then subtracted to show how each audience differs from those who are not on that platform. For example, the YouTube audience has a 12-point more negative view of Volodymyr Zelenskyy vs. those who are not on the platform. Note that a positive number does not necessarily indicate that the audience feels positively about that individual. It only means that the audience feels more positively than those who are not on the platform. You’ll see what I mean in a minute.

Overall, gaps are least dramatic for YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook, reflecting their broad and diverse audiences. However, there are some noticeable differences. Most significantly for our domestic politics, Poilievre is more likely to be positively viewed among these platforms’ audiences. Carney is viewed no differently among YouTube vs. non-YouTube audiences, and is more likely to be negatively viewed by Instagram and Facebook audiences.

Of the social media platforms, the most dramatic differences come from TikTok and Twitter/X. However, while the patterns look similar, TikTok audiences are actually just less engaged and more likely to say they’ve never heard of people like Zelenskyy and Netanyahu, while X users tend to have strong opinions. Still, across these platforms, Zelenskyy, Macron, Carney, and Ford are more likely to be negatively viewed, while Netanyahu, Poilievre, Putin, and Trump are more likely to be favourably viewed.

Those who read newspapers or watch cable news are much more likely to have favourable views of Zelenskyy, Macron, Carney, Ford, and Trudeau, and they’re much more likely to have negative impressions of Netanyahu, Poilievre, Putin, and Trump.

Below are full breakdowns for each leader, but frankly, I’ve arrived at 12:30 on a Friday, and this article needs to end. So I will let you dig around on your own. Enjoy! 😅

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

We often treat politics as something sterile and rational, separate from culture — yet that’s never been true. At a time when social media serves news alongside entertainment, it’s never been more important to understand how politics and culture intersect.

In the Culture Lab, we'll explore the marvelous mad science of how the zeitgeist shapes politics. We'll go beyond surface-level horse-race figures to uncover what is really driving public opinion and political momentum. Our audience will leave each episode with a deeper understanding of how voters think, what movements mean, and why certain ideas break through.

👉 Subscribe on YouTube
👉 Subscribe on Apple Podcasts
👉 Subscribe on Spotify

And if you prefer the written-word, or just can’t get enough data (you weirdo), fear not. I’ll still be publishing here regularly. Somehow…

Share

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Depending on your algorithm (I wouldn’t know), it can feel like Heated Rivalry mania has been non-stop since November. The hard data bears this out:

• Within 3 weeks of its release, Crave viewership increased by 400%

• It’s the #2 driver of first-time viewers to HBO Max

• Driven by word-of-mouth, viewership increased by 747% in its second week

• Heated Rivalry is the #1 selling romance book in the US

• LGBTQ+ romance book sales have grown by more than 100% compared to last year

• 1/3rd of audience members have rewatched an episode, while 15% have watched an episode 5 TIMES OR MORE

Perhaps nothing distills the cultural impact quite like Google Trends. Search for Heated Rivalry more than doubles search for fellow Canadian-phenom, Schitt’s Creek, at its peak. This trend is the same in the US.

My polling data reflects what we see online. Those who watched the show are kind of evangelical about it. Nearly 3 in 4 are hopeful that this show will have a significant impact on the LGBTQ community, whether that’s influencing more athletes to come out publicly, helping LGBTQ folks feel more accepted in sports, or signaling broader LGBTQ acceptance. Even among people who haven’t watched the show, 4 in 10 hope it will encourage more LGBTQ players to come out and make sports more accepting.

More than that, 7 in 10 of those who watched Heated Rivalry say it makes them proud to be Canadian, and 66% think it’s a good use of taxpayer money. CanCon for the win.

And while many jokes have been made about this being the most hockey-less hockey show imaginable, 64% of viewers say the show made them more interested in hockey. I’ll continue to enjoy watching the NHL try to figure out what to do with that given *gestures widely*.

As notable as the positive public reaction is, it’s also interesting what didn’t happen. In a world where right-wing media lost its shit over a Black mermaid and non-sexy M&Ms, I kept waiting for the moment that Heated Rivalry got swept into the culture wars. Maybe they’re just busy – Venezuela, Greenland, brutalizing citizens, etc. For now, I’ll enjoy a reaction that has felt overwhelmingly joyful.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

When conducting political research, there are always moments when the candidate’s brand transforms from a 2-dimensional list of attributes to something with life. Often, these moments occur during focus groups when a participant says something so piercingly true that it shifts how we think about the race. In 2025, this moment happened out in the open.

My favourite moment of the 2025 campaign is when a woman heckled Carney with a “lead us big daddy!” which received a flustered, and maybe a little flattered, laugh from the PM. The exchange went viral. For me, it made the data real. “Big Daddy Carns” became our often-joked-about shorthand for the PM’s specific flavour of cheeky/charming competence. It’s Business Carney, but it’s also the alter ego who pocketed a beer at a St Patty’s Day parade, bragged about his Spotify age, and made jokes about cabinet selections. BDC is serious but fundamentally human.

The Prime Minister’s speech at the World Economic Forum was brand-perfect. Carney was exactly who we told voters he was and who they elected him to be. While there were no beers put into pockets, Big Daddy Carns made that speech. He was diplomatic, but firm. He also employed the much-overlooked political tactic of telling the truth.

I’ve written at length (here, here) about how the vast majority of Canadians view the Trump administration. 2 in 3 Canadians believe “fascism,” “authoritarianism,” or presumably a whole new, not yet defined “ism” apply to what is happening to American democracy. In his speech, Carney looked Canadians in the eye and said, “I see what you’re seeing. You’re not crazy, you’re not alone.” It’s reassurance through shared reality. He invited other leaders to join us in the light.

The empty calories of conspiracy

There’s something poetic about Carney’s presumably historic speech happening at the World Economic Forum, one of the villains of the Twittered right. If you’re unfamiliar with the WEF/Great Reset conspiracy theory, bless you. It argues that the global elite, led by the World Economic Forum, planned the pandemic to trigger economic collapse and establish a socialist world government. This is a conspiracy theory Pierre Poilievre was (and is) more than happy to take advantage of.

From the pandemic to Trump’s reelection, the political energy in the country was taken up by the “Fuck Trudeau” right. I don’t want to paint anyone who disliked Trudeau (there were many) with the same brush. I’m talking about the super-angry, super-online crowd who became both the victims and purveyors of misinformation. These are the people who supported the convoy, thought COVID was a hoax, and bought into the Great Reset theory.

When Donald Trump started threatening our sovereignty, a new, more dominant source of political energy emerged. It was driven by Canadians, disproportionately seniors, who are deeply disturbed by what they’re seeing south of the border. It’s not that anti-elite backlash disappeared overnight; it’s still there. But for most Canadians, the greatest outside threat to our country is Donald Trump and his MAGA goons, not faceless elites who want action on climate change.

Political energy is the fuel of campaigns, but, as with food, some sources are better than others. Speaking only to the hyper-online is persuasion candy. It provides a quick hit, but lacks longevity. In prioritizing the conspiratorial minority of his base, Poilievre sacrificed broader appeal. This leads us to where we are today.

Carney’s greatest advantage over Poilievre is his WEFian skillset: representing Canada on the world stage, navigating global conflicts, and bringing Canadians together. However, Carney also wins in a forced-choice on domestic issues, including dealing with the cost-of-living crisis and Alberta and Quebec separatism.

Poilievre peddling conspiracies is part of what leads 51% of Canadians to believe (28% strongly) that he “represents a scary kind of politics.” This view is widespread among those who are not Conservative voters. As I wrote in November, this is especially problematic in the politically polarized moment we’re living in. As a point of reference, 25% of Conservative voters strongly believe Carney is “scary.”

In the face of Trump’s instability, Canadians are acutely aware of our need to build relationships, work with allies, and supplement the US as a trading partner. It requires diplomacy at venues like the World Economic Forum. I’m sure there’s little Poilievre wouldn’t give to be seen as someone who could get a standing ovation at Davos. He should have stayed away from the sweets.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Over the past year, our politics has had 4 main characters: Justin Trudeau, Pierre Poilievre, Mark Carney, and, against our will (although enabling the survival of the Liberal Party), Donald Trump. Day after day, our headlines are dominated by Trump’s latest whim, whether that be rhetorical or actual policy.

In October, I wrote a detailed analysis of how Canadians perceive the Trump administration and the state of US democracy. I found that 2 in 3 Canadians had an extremely pessimistic (some may say realistic) view of what is happening in America, and believe that “dictatorship,” “authoritarian,” “fascist,” “democratic backsliding,” and “oligarchy” at least somewhat apply to what’s happening inside the US. Approximately 4 in 10 Canadians thought those words strongly applied. In that article, I wrote:

“My polling finds that the general population consensus is further ahead of the overt elite consensus. I stress overt because I think most of Canada’s academics, journalists, politicians, public servants, and business leaders clearly see the flashing warning signs, but are they talking about it publicly? This research suggests someone should be.”

It feels like with the arrest of Maduro, threats against Colombia, Mexico, and Greenland, the death of Renee Good, and the brutal treatment of Minneapolis protesters by ICE, that we’ve had a bit of a collective “Oh, this is the real deal.” It’s getting scary.

But does this surface in the polls?

Impression of Trump

Unfavourable impressions of Trump skyrocketed in the first few months of 2025 as Trump’s “51st State” rhetoric intensified. His “very unfavourables” have since declined, though they remain extremely high. Today, 7 in 10 Canadians have an unfavourable view of Trump, 13% have a neutral, and 16% have a favourable view.

Since November, Canadians have become more uncertain about the future of American democracy. Just 12% think it’s “certain” the US will be a democracy in 5 years, and 18% think it’s “likely.” To reiterate, just 30% of Canadians feel reasonably confident that America, the beacon of freedom, will continue to have democratic governance in FIVE years’ time. A plurality of voters (31%) simply aren’t sure, while 26% think it’s only “possible.”

Latest Issues

Canadians are paying close attention to Trump’s latest events. Half of Canadians have read/seen/heard “a great deal” about an ICE agent killing a woman (Renee Good) in Minneapolis, and another 29% have heard “something” about this. As many Canadians have consumed information about the US arresting Nicolás Maduro. 46% have heard a great deal about the Trump administration discussing their desire to take over Greenland, and 36% have heard “something” about it. As a point of comparison, 24% of Canadians have heard “a great deal” about Canada’s recent pledge to spend $200 million on military equipment for Ukraine. In November, 28% of Canadians had heard “a great deal” about the federal budget. Trump takes up a lot of space.

Opposition (46%) significantly outweighs support (31%) for Trump’s arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and strong opposition is twice as high as strong support. The arrest is more divisive among Conservatives. While more support (45%) than oppose (38%) the arrest, 1 in 5 are strongly opposed. It’s not a clear-cut political winner.

Thinking about the Trump administration’s policies more generally, a not insignificant 34% of Canadians say they support his immigration and deportation policies. A majority of Canadians are opposed, and 37% are strongly opposed, but this data does show a sizable contingent of Canadians who support severe measures to address immigration. This issue is one to watch closely.

29% of Canadians support Trump’s crackdown on DEI, while 50% are opposed. There’s a significant difference in how Trump’s economic policies, excluding tariffs, are received vs. his tariff policies specifically. The former is opposed by 56% of Canadians, while 73% oppose his tariffs.

All of these policies are politically toxic among Liberals, a majority of whom strongly oppose each.

Among Conservative voters, a majority (55%) support Trump’s immigration and deportation policies, 1 in 3 strongly. Support also outweighs opposition for the crackdown on DEI. Trump’s economic management, including tariffs, is more opposed than supported.

Since Trump first came down the escalator, it has felt like with every incendiary thing he has said or done, the American right has rallied to tell us that 1) we’re not seeing what we think we’re seeing, and/or 2) that the issue is actually NBD. Rattled by missing the seriousness of Trump’s political operation, Democrats have been filled with self-doubt. Paralysis sets in.

I see this happen among the commentariat in Canada as well, but if you talk/persuade/inform for a living, go off. The vast majority of Canadians are taking Trump literally and seriously. 2 in 3 Canadians think Trump is serious about wanting to take over Greenland and Venezuela. Fewer than 1 in 5 think he’s not serious. Just over half think he’s serious about wanting to make Canada the 51st state, and 49% think he’s serious about wanting to invade Mexico.

The likelihood of taking Trump seriously increases with age. Chalk it up to lived experience, news consumption habits, or some kind of collective Boomer anxiety, but seniors are most worried about Trump and where things are headed. In turn (because seniors now make up a huge portion of the LPC voter coalition), Liberal voters are most likely to be taking Trump seriously. However, even among Conservatives, more than 6 in 10 think he’s serious about Greenland and Venezuela, a majority think he’s serious about the 51st state claims, and 45% believe he’s serious about wanting to invade Mexico.

The net-net

I want to end on one last question: Does this even matter? Since the mid-point of the campaign, many have concluded that, because the cost of living is the preferred priority, that’s where we should focus our attention. In my own polling, when framed as a forced choice, 68% of Canadians say they would prefer that the government focus on the cost of living, while 32% prioritize protecting Canada from Donald Trump’s threats and tariffs. The government needs to be seen as addressing costs. Full stop. But this isn’t a forced choice. It would be insane to steer away from the dominant political story of our time, one that also provides a smorgasbord of wedges.

Sometimes, I feel like giving friendly advice to my friends on the other side of the aisle, and that continues today. A few tips:

1. Be sure to point out that the left has “Trump derangement syndrome.” You could also try out the word “hysterical.”

2. Contextualize Trump’s comments as jokes or hyperbole, especially as it pertains to threats against Canada.

3. When Trump lands a win, praise it.

Don’t say I never gave you anything.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share

• Canadians’ perception of Trump and what his administration is doing across our hemisphere (because we now apparently think in hemispheres),

• The state of Carney and Poilievre’s brands,

• Voter reaction to the NDP leadership race,

and a few other odds and ends. Be sure to subscribe so you don’t miss it.

Subscribe now

As a pollster and observer of politics, the past year has felt like one thing: volatility. This is partly due to the whiplash experienced when Trudeau went from a low of 20 points in the polls to Carney’s all-time high of 46%, and the eventual LPC reelection. More than that, we’ve now surpassed 1 year of the day-after-day Trump 2.0 nightmare. I thought about jotting down a series of their newest lows, but we’ve all been disturbed enough.

Despite things feeling nuts, Canada has actually been politically stable since the last election. 3% seems to be the magic number – it’s the lead I’ve had the Liberals holding since the April election. If an election were held today (or more specifically, Jan 9-11):

• 40% of Canadians would vote for the Liberals

• 37% would vote CPC

• 7% NDP

• 6% Bloc Québécois

• 4% People’s Party

• 3% Green Party

• 3% would vote for another party

The Liberals, Conservatives, and Bloc are retaining equal shares of their vote from the last election. Approximately 85% of each party’s 2025 voters are staying with their respective party. Despite their brutal result, 1 in 3 2025 NDP voters have abandoned their party since April, mostly to the Liberals’ benefit.

Compared to November, we’re also seeing consistency in each party’s pool of accessible voters. Currently, 61% of Canadians are open to voting for the Liberals, and 1 in 4 say they are certain to do so. The Conservatives continue to have a slightly smaller vote pool (56%), although their core - those who are “certain” to vote for the party is comparable to the Liberals’. At first glance, the Bloc vote pool appears to have become a bit more consolidated, but the sample size is smaller, so I’m not sure if that’s a blip or not. And just 6% of Canadians say they’re “certain” to vote for the NDP and their next leader. Woof.

When looking at tracking data, yes, the horse race is important. But I’m always more interested (outside of a campaign) in what’s happening under the surface. These are the metrics that usually move first, and then we see vote intention start to shift. But here, we see significant stability as well. Since election day, just over half of Canadians have reported that they feel the country is on the wrong track. Down from 70% last January. Is the end of the Trudeau era still relevant for tracking purposes? Maybe not. But that trend line sure is fun to look at.

One of the big changes that I observed from the election to the fall is the increase in comfort Canadians appear to have with the Carney government. Even as they were re-electing the Liberals, a majority of Canadians felt Canada needed change more than stability. By November, 56% of Canadians preferred stability, a figure that has since held.

So what does this mean for a possible future election? There has been increased support for an election this year. Although I should point out that this question was last asked in November, so “this year” meant November/December. We’re now looking at an 11.5-month time horizon. Regardless, Canadians are somewhat more likely to support (45%) than oppose (40%) returning to the polls this year, although equal portions are strongly opposed and strongly supportive. Not surprisingly, CPC voters are most hungry for another election (73% support, 15% oppose), while LPC voters are most likely to be opposed (25% support, 67% oppose). NDP and Bloc voters are nearly evenly divided on whether they want another election.

Reaction to floor crossing to achieve a majority is the same as it was in November. 47% of Canadians support “opposition MPs joining the Liberals so they have a majority government and Canada has more stability,” while 32% are opposed. Among Liberals, 79% support this idea, compared to 55% of Bloc voters, 47% of NDP voters, and just 25% of Conservatives.

When forced to choose, Canadians are evenly divided between wanting another election this year (38%) and wanting the Liberals to secure a majority via floor crossings (40%), though a significant portion isn’t sure either way (22%).

A Liberal government continues to be the preferred outcome by a majority of Canadians (55%), although there has been some movement (3-pts) from a preference for a majority to a minority. 35% of Canadians continue to prefer a CPC majority, while 9% would prefer a Conservative minority.

How long will this stability hold? Well, we have a CPC leadership review in January, NDP leadership election in March, significant political uncertainty in Alberta and Quebec (at a minimum), and Trump in the White House. WHO KNOWS. But the last 9 months also haven’t really been business as usual.