Canada Prime Minister Election 2025: AI Prediction & Betting Odds (Poilievre vs Carney)
Who does o3 (AI) think wins the upcoming Canadian Prime Minister election?
I don’t follow Canadian politics much, just assume the politicians there are as woke as it gets. Without knowing too much about the political atmosphere of Canada — I would blindly guess something like a spectrum of candidates ranging from: Obama to Bernie Sanders.
Turns out my thinking was a bit distorted and completely inaccurate re: Canada in 2025 — at least for the Prime Minister position.
When I saw Pierre Poilievre eating an apple in an interview that went viral… I figured this was a guy who might get Canada on the right track (i.e. save them from woke decay).
Despite the “vibes” from this interview, I don’t know whether he has smart policy proposals or is just going all in on the-current-populist-thing. From my cursory research, I’d say Pierre is more good than bad, but I don’t know what his bad policies might be.
Subjectively, Trudeau seemed like a woke disaster. Objectively? I’d have to dig into the data… not sure. Some of the shit happening in Canada under Trudeau seemed abnormal.
Side note: A ridiculously funny conspiracy theory that many have spread — that is downright uncanny — is that Justin Trudeau is a descendent of Fidel Castro. Laughed so hard I was crying. Do I believe this? No, but it’s so damn hilarious that I find myself wanting to believe it.
Under Trudeau… Canada basically turned into India 2.0 and a satellite country for Southeast Asia (e.g. Philippines) — and that immigrants were being flown in with no regard for Canadian preferences.
Many have claimed that Indians were digging “shit holes” on Canada’s beaches, exploiting charities & food pantries (e.g. exploiting the altruistic dispositions of the white Canadian people), taking jobs, and driving up housing costs, etc.
Not sure what extent this is true, I’d be skeptical of some claims… but I do know that the Indians in Canada are different than the Indians in the U.S. (The U.S. tends to attract more elite, higher IQ subsets of immigrants of all types, including Indians.)
Other woke Canadian things…
Canada had been focusing on “2SLGPTQI+”, systemic racism, DEI, etc. within government. Canada was favoring non-whites based on skin color.
Canada was using gender-based analysis for federal budgets and appointing “gender-balanced” cabinets.
Trudeau promoted “indigenous reconciliation” portraying white Canadians as evil “colonizers” and indigenous as “exploited peoples” with alleged mass graves (that haven’t been dug up).
Canada regulated speech and enabled censorship (Bill C-11: regulating online platforms) and cracked down on “misgendering”
Ethics scandals linked to Trudeau’s camp (SNC-Lavalin affair, WE Charity scandal, etc.)
From what I’ve gathered? Most Canadians want to fix their housing crisis and improve their healthcare system. I think some are realizing the pitfalls of allowing unfettered immigration as well.
Pierre Poilievre emerged in 2024 as a guy who wanted to get back to common sense: cut regulations, lower taxes, ease gun ownership laws, and make drugs & crime illegal again (put people in prison who commit crimes). Free market capitalism? Sounds smart to me.
What’s crazy about Canada’s upcoming PM election? If you checked out the Polymarket betting odds for who was likely to win in late 2024 and early 2025 — it appeared as though Pierre was going to demolish the competition (Carney).
There was a big vibe shift against wokeness in the U.S. that helped Trump win in November 2024… The Canadians wanted to get back to normal. The immune system was kicking in against the woke mind virus. Trudeau felt the heat and resigned in January 2025.
After Trudeau resigned (Jan 6), there was a one-member-one-contest-vote (Feb 26 to Mar 9) for Liberal leadership in which Mark Carney (former Bank-of-Canada governor) won (against Chrystia Freeland) with ~86% of ballots.
Carney was sworn in as PM on March 14, 2025. However, his party (the liberals) held only 153 of 343 seats and had been propped up by an NDP “supply-and-confidence” pact (which was torn up last September 2024).
Since Carney has no seat of his own (wasn’t an MP) — it weakens prime-minister-without-a-seat and would force an awkward by-election (i.e. mini election). So on March 23, 2025 Carney asked the governor general to dissolve Parliament and set a 5-week campaign for a “snap election” ending April 28, 2025.
Why? After months of trailing in polls by 10+ points, Liberal support for Carney skyrocketed when Trump: (1) slapped new tariffs on Canada AND (2) implied that Canada may get annexed by the U.S.
And now Carney wants to capitalize on this lead… strike while the iron’s hot and secure his PM win. Carney is essentially betting that an early vote will help him more than if he waited until the fixed election date (set for October 2025).
Makes logical sense. Is Carney’s popularity surge only because of Trump? Perhaps not entirely. Another angle I’ve considered is that people like what he’s done and/or leadership thus far since taking over as PM.
Canadians really dislike the idea of being bullied by Trump… Carney is the anti-Trump guy. Republicans suggesting that Trump helped Pierre and Pierre fumbled the bag are mentally warped… if anything Trump worked against Pierre in a major way.
From the cursory research I’ve done, neither Poilievre nor Carney seems that bad. I probably agree with Pierre on more basic issues and overall philosophy (not necessarily on all populist impulses), but neither candidate seems as woke or terrible “on paper” as I expected. (Not sure what’s up with the rest of the Canadian government though.)
o3 AI Predicts the 2025 Canadian Prime Minister Election (Pierre Poilievre vs. Mark Carney) (April 2025)
Sometime last week I leveraged o3 (full) to research the upcoming 2025 Canadian Prime Minister election between Pierre Poilievre vs. Mark Carney.
Who would I vote for if Canadian? Likely Pierre. I agree with more of his views (from my brief policy skimming). Seems more common sense. Not sure about his worst policy ideas though (maybe he has mostly good ideas?) Carney seems alright though too (not sure how woke he is though).
Note: Research was completed mid-April 2025. Something big could happen before the election to massively sway the outcome, but this is unlikely.
Research details: 31m x 18 sources
RELATED: Romania Presidential Election 2025 Betting Odds & Prediction
Introduction & Context
Canadians are approaching a pivotal decision on April 28, 2025, when they will elect their next federal government. In an unprecedented twist, the two leading contenders for prime minister are Pierre Poilievre of the Conservative Party and Mark Carney of the Liberal Party – the latter having recently succeeded Justin Trudeau as Liberal leader and Prime Minister.
This election follows nearly a decade of Liberal rule under Trudeau and comes on the heels of major economic and geopolitical disruptions.
What makes this election especially intriguing is the convergence of two powerful forces: a domestic cost-of-living crisis (soaring housing costs, inflation, and economic anxiety) and an external shock from the United States, where President Donald Trump’s aggressive stance toward Canada (including tariff threats and even provocative remarks about annexation) has rattled Canadians.
These factors have dramatically reshaped the electoral landscape in the past few months, turning a contest that once looked like a foregone conclusion for the Conservatives into a competitive race.
Canada’s Electoral System & the Importance of Vote Distribution
Canada uses a first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system in 338 single-member districts (ridings). This means that the party which wins the most seats (ridings) typically forms the government, and a candidate can win a seat with a simple plurality of votes in that district. The nationwide popular vote percentage does not directly determine the winner, and in fact Canada has a history of mismatches between the popular vote and seat counts.
In the 2019 election, for example, the Conservative Party won 34% of the popular vote vs. 33% for the Liberals, yet the Liberals won 157 seats vs. 121 for the Conservatives. The Conservatives “wasted” many votes by piling up huge majorities in western Canada (especially Alberta), while the Liberals won narrower victories across many districts in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada. This efficiency in vote distribution allowed Justin Trudeau to continue as Prime Minister in 2019 despite losing the popular vote nationally.
A similar pattern occurred in 2021: the Conservatives again narrowly won the popular vote nationally, but the Liberals won more seats (maintaining a minority government). The first-past-the-post system thus tends to reward parties whose support is broad-based across many regions (even if somewhat lower on average), and penalize parties that “run up the score” in a few regions while lacking support elsewhere.
For 2025, this means that where each party’s votes are concentrated is as important as overall vote share. Generally, the Liberal Party’s vote is more efficiently distributed for converting votes to seats – they have strong support in urban and suburban areas of Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada, which have many ridings, often winning those ridings by relatively manageable margins.
The Conservative Party, by contrast, dominates more rural and western regions (e.g. the Prairies) with overwhelming margins, leading to excess votes that don’t translate into additional seats.
Implication: If the nationwide vote is close (within a few points), the Liberals would likely win more seats than the Conservatives. The Conservatives typically need a clear popular vote lead (or a very efficient regional breakthrough) to secure a plurality of seats. This is a crucial backdrop for interpreting polls and forecasting the outcome – a tied poll does not mean a tied seat count. Mark Carney’s Liberals could win even if they don’t win the popular vote, whereas Poilievre’s Conservatives probably need a decent vote lead to overcome the structural seat deficit. All analyses of the 2025 race must keep this electoral math in mind.
Historical Performance of Liberals & Conservatives
Understanding how the parties have fared under previous leadership provides context.
Liberal Party (Justin Trudeau era 2015-2024): Trudeau led the Liberals to a sweeping victory in 2015 (a majority government) on a message of “Real Change.” However, subsequent elections saw diminished returns – in 2019 and 2021 Trudeau won only minorities. By late 2023, fatigue and frustration had set in among the electorate and even within his party. Scandals and controversies (ethics breaches, a stalled agenda on electoral reform, and reports of Chinese election interference, among others) eroded public trust. The economy’s turn (high inflation) and the housing affordability crisis further damaged Trudeau’s popularity. By the end of 2024, polls had the Liberals languishing in the mid-to-high 20s in percentage support – dramatically behind the Conservatives. Indeed, Trudeau’s personal unpopularity and party infighting made it “nearly impossible for him to face off” against the ascendant Conservatives, who at one point polled “as many as 25 points ahead” of the Liberals. Sensing this, Trudeau announced in early January 2025 that he would step down after nearly 10 years in power.
Conservative Party (Stephen Harper era 2006-2015 and Opposition years): Under Harper, the Conservatives governed for about 9 years, winning three elections (two minorities in 2006 and 2008, then a majority in 2011) before being defeated by Trudeau in 2015. The Harper years were marked by fiscal conservatism, resource development, and a base of support in the West and rural/suburban Ontario. After 2015, the party cycled through leaders (Andrew Scheer, Erin O’Toole) who failed to unseat Trudeau in 2019 and 2021 despite favorable conditions. Pierre Poilievre became leader in 2022 and injected new energy into the Conservative base. He repositioned the party with a more populist tone – courting voters angry about pandemic restrictions, “elites,” high taxes, and inflation. From 2022 through 2024, the Conservatives steadily built a lead in the polls as discontent with the Liberals grew. By late 2024, Conservatives were dominant in polls, maintaining a lead that some surveys put into double digits or more. As Ipsos noted, there were “nearly four years of Conservative dominance in the polls” since 2021.
This history set the stage for early 2025: a Conservative Party that had momentum and a Liberal Party in search of renewal. The choice of Mark Carney as Trudeau’s successor was an attempt to reset the Liberal brand with a respected, technocratic figure not associated with Trudeau-era baggage. Meanwhile, Poilievre sought to be the face of change, casting the upcoming election as a chance to finally end the Trudeau (now Carney) era.
Momentum Shifts: Public Sentiment (2024-2025)
Few election campaigns in recent memory have seen as dramatic a swing in fortunes as this 2025 race. It truly has been a roller-coaster:
Late 2024: Conservatives riding high. Polls in late 2024 showed Poilievre’s Conservatives well ahead – in some cases 20-25 percentage points ahead of the Liberals nationally. Had an election been held then, it likely would have been a Conservative landslide. In fact, as of February 2025, projection models gave the Tories a 99% chance of winning, likely with one of the largest parliamentary majorities in decades. Public sentiment was heavily favoring “time for a change,” and Trudeau’s government appeared on its last legs.
Trudeau’s Resignation (January 2025): Trudeau’s decision to resign was a turning point. It instantly opened the door for the Liberals to rejuvenate. The party quickly coalesced around Mark Carney – a star recruit who had long been rumored as a potential Liberal leader. Carney, a former governor of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England, brought economic gravitas and a fresh face. He won the Liberal leadership decisively and was sworn in as Prime Minister in March 2025. This internal change was designed to blunt the desire for change externally by offering a change within the governing party. There was indeed a “honeymoon” effect for Carney in polls.
Trump’s Tariff Threat (Early 2025): Compounding the leadership change was an external shock: Donald Trump (having presumably won the U.S. 2024 election and now President again) began making harsh moves toward Canada. He threatened steep tariffs and made inflammatory statements (even musing about making Canada the 51st state). These actions “scrambled the stakes of the election”, as the Guardian noted. Suddenly, an election that was to be fought on domestic issues had a national unity and economic security theme injected into it. Canadians across the spectrum reacted with anxiety and patriotism – a dynamic more favorable to an incumbent government if it could demonstrate competent leadership. Carney, given his background, seized the issue.
Snap Election Called (March 2025): Just 9 days into his tenure as PM, Mark Carney called a snap election. This decision was calculated: the Conservatives had been the “sure bet” for months, but Carney sensed a rapidly shifting national mood in response to Trump’s aggression. By calling an election for April 28, Carney essentially forced a showdown while the Liberal base was re-energized and before the Conservative messaging (which had focused on Trudeau) could fully adjust to the new landscape. It was a bold gamble, but it had a strong rationale – Carney also did not yet have a seat in Parliament, and heading straight to the electorate was a way to legitimize his leadership and capitalize on momentum.
Poll Reversal (Feb–Mar 2025): The impact of these events on polling was dramatic. In a matter of weeks, the Conservative lead evaporated. For instance, Ipsos reported that by late February the Liberals had “overturned a 26-point deficit from just six weeks ago”, taking a slight lead for the first time since 2021. Support for the NDP and Bloc also dipped at that time – indicating some consolidation of anti-Conservative votes behind the new Liberal leader. Another source noted the Conservatives had been 72% favorites in mid-February but by mid-March Carney had surged to a 49% chance vs 51% for Poilievre on prediction markets, closely tracking the tightening polls. Observers credited this “remarkable turnaround” to Carney’s leadership and Trump’s tariff threat, which played directly to Carney’s strengths. In short, early in the campaign the Liberals caught up to level-pegging with the Conservatives after being far behind.
Liberals Take the Lead (March–Early April 2025): By the start of April, most polls showed the Liberals ahead of the Conservatives – a complete reversal from a few months prior. The Guardian reported that all 12 polling firms in Canada had the Liberals leading as the campaign entered its final stages, “to the extent that a majority government is the most likely outcome” for the Liberals. Some polls in late March likely had the Liberals up by high single digits. This led forecasters to speculate that Carney’s Liberals might even secure a majority of seats, whereas the Conservatives went from dreaming of a landslide to worrying about outright defeat. A new dynamic took hold: could Carney actually win outright and not just a minority?
Late-Campaign Tightening (Mid April 2025): As is common in Canadian campaigns, the race tightened in the final stretch. The initial shock of the U.S. trade war news began to fade slightly in voters’ minds, refocusing attention on core domestic issues like affordability. An Abacus Data poll conducted April 14-15 found the Liberal lead shrinking to 2 points (40% Liberal vs 38% Conservative), down from a 6-point lead two weeks prior. It also found that among those most certain to vote, the Conservatives actually inched into a statistical tie or slight lead (40% Con vs 39% Lib), reflecting a potential turnout advantage for Poilievre’s base. Other pollsters around mid-April similarly indicated a neck-and-neck race in popular support. Importantly, Carney’s personal numbers, while still positive, slipped a bit, and the desire for change — which had lulled during the Trump scare — resurged to 56% saying “definitely time for a change”. This indicated that Poilievre’s message was reasserting itself as memories of Trudeau’s reign weren’t completely erased by a few weeks of Carney.
“Who Will Win?” Expectations: Despite the tightening, many Canadians still expected a Liberal victory. In mid-April, 48% of Canadians said they believe the Liberals will win vs 32% who predicted a Conservative win. This expectation may be influenced by the Liberals’ recent momentum and perhaps an assumption that their vote will be more efficiently translated into seats. It’s also a common psychological phenomenon: even some intending Conservative voters might predict a Liberal win if they’ve seen the Liberals leading in the polls. Expectations can sometimes influence strategic voting (people backing a winner or, conversely, complacency in the leading side), but mostly it’s an interesting sentiment indicator.
The period from 2024 to April 2025 saw Conservatives go from overwhelming favorites to underdogs, and Liberals go from beleaguered to slightly favored. The trigger for this swing was a combination of Trudeau’s exit (removing a polarizing figure) and an external crisis (Trump’s trade war) that shifted the campaign narrative.
However, as the immediacy of that external threat slightly waned during the campaign, underlying fundamentals (the economy, desire for change) reasserted themselves to tighten the race. The election has become a true toss-up scenario, with a slight edge to the Liberals but far from a certainty.
Key Factors Influencing the Outcome
1. Regional Battlegrounds & Seat Dynamics
Canada’s diverse regional political landscape means elections are often decided in a few key battleground provinces.
Ontario (especially Greater Toronto Area and Southern Ontario): Ontario is Canada’s most populous province with 121 seats, and it is traditionally where federal elections are won or lost. Currently, polls indicate the Liberals hold an edge in Ontario – approximately a 7-point lead (47% Liberal vs 40% Conservative) according to Abacus. This is hugely significant. If Carney maintains such a lead in Ontario, the Liberals would capture the lion’s share of the GTA “905 belt” suburban ridings and many in urban centers like Toronto and Ottawa. Even in 2021 when the national popular vote was tied, the Liberals won about 45 of Ontario’s seats to the Conservatives’ ~36. A 7-point margin could yield an even larger haul for Liberals. Poilievre’s path to victory demands narrowing this gap. He has targeted cost-of-living issues that resonate in the GTA (where housing costs are a major pain) and is likely hoping that the late swing on affordability brings some Ontario voters back. In 2011, Harper’s majority was built on a breakthrough in suburban Toronto; Poilievre would need a similar trend. As of now, advantage: Carney in Ontario, and that’s a big boost to Liberal seat prospects.
Quebec: Quebec has 78 seats and features a multi-dimensional contest thanks to the Bloc Québécois, a regional party that only runs in Quebec. In this election, Quebec is a three-way battlefield (Liberals vs. Bloc vs. Conservatives), though realistically Conservatives are a distant third in Quebec. The Abacus poll shows Liberals 36% in Quebec, Bloc 36%, Conservatives 19%. If that holds, the Liberals and Bloc would split most of Quebec’s seats. The Bloc tends to dominate rural and small-town francophone Quebec, while Liberals win seats in Montreal, its suburbs, and among non-francophone communities. For Carney, tying the Bloc in popular vote there is a favorable outcome, as it suggests he’s holding much of the Liberal base that Trudeau had and maybe even challenging the Bloc in some areas. Poilievre’s 19% would likely yield only a handful of Quebec seats (possibly around Quebec City or certain areas where Conservatives have some presence). Historically, when Conservatives cannot win at least 20-30 seats in Quebec, it’s hard for them to get a majority in the House. Poilievre likely will do worse in Quebec than Harper did in 2006-2011. Carney’s personal appeal in Quebec is reportedly strong, possibly due to his French language skills and moderate image; he leads Poilievre by 24 points as “Preferred PM” in Quebec. Advantage: Carney in Quebec (with the caveat that many of these seats might go Bloc instead – but at least that denies them to the Conservatives).
British Columbia: B.C. (42 seats) is a three-way contest among Liberals, Conservatives, and the NDP. It’s a classic battleground province where small shifts can swing many seats. Polls currently show a dead heat in B.C.: 39% Liberal, 39% Conservative, 16% NDP. In 2021, the Conservatives narrowly won the popular vote in B.C. and took 13 seats, the Liberals won 15, and the NDP 13 (with 1 Green). If the Liberals and Conservatives are truly tied in support, the seat split could be quite even again. The Greater Vancouver area is key: Liberals typically win the urban Vancouver and some suburban ridings, Conservatives win in the Fraser Valley suburbs and the interior/rural B.C., and the NDP wins some urban and Vancouver Island seats. For Carney to win, he’ll want to hold or expand Liberal seats in Vancouver and possibly pick off one or two where the NDP is weak. For Poilievre, winning a few extra seats in suburban Vancouver or on Vancouver Island (where a strong NDP might split vote with Liberals) could make a difference. Right now, no clear advantage – it’s genuinely competitive. Notably, the NDP at 16% indicates some of their vote might have shifted Liberal compared to usual, helping Carney in a tight Lib-Con race. B.C. could provide either party a cushion of seats in a close election, so it’s one to watch.
Alberta & the Prairies (Saskatchewan & Manitoba): This is Conservative heartland. Alberta (34 seats) and Saskatchewan (14 seats) in 2021 went almost entirely Conservative blue. We expect Poilievre to sweep the vast majority of ridings in these provinces again. His anti-carbon-tax, pro-energy, anti-Trudeau message is extremely popular here. The Liberals might pick up a couple of urban seats at best (e.g., in Calgary or Edmonton, if a star Liberal candidate appeals to a diverse urban riding). But essentially, Alberta and Saskatchewan will pad the Conservative seat count – possibly 40+ out of 48 seats combined. The catch: this was also true in 2019 and 2021, yet the Conservatives still fell short overall. These provinces have fewer seats than Ontario/Quebec, and many Conservative victories here are by massive margins, meaning lots of “excess” votes that don’t contribute to winning additional seats. As a result, even if Conservatives win some 70-80% of the vote in Alberta (as they did in 2021), it doesn’t change the overall seat tally beyond those few dozen. Manitoba (14 seats) is slightly more competitive – Winnipeg has a few Liberal/NDP strongholds. We might see Liberals retain a couple of Winnipeg seats, and possibly the NDP one, with Conservatives taking the rest of Manitoba. Advantage: Poilievre in the Prairies, undoubtedly – but it’s largely “baked in” advantage, as anyone forecasting the seat count already assumes Conservatives dominate there. It helps Poilievre’s popular vote a lot; the question is whether it gives him enough seats elsewhere.
Atlantic Canada (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland & Labrador, Prince Edward Island): The four Atlantic provinces together have 32 seats. Historically, Atlantic Canada leans Liberal – Trudeau swept all 32 in 2015, and though the Conservatives made a few inroads in 2019 and 2021, the Liberals still won a majority of Atlantic seats in the last election. Issues like fisheries, regional economic support, and a general moderate political culture have favored Liberals, though economic angst has grown here too. In 2025, we’d expect Liberals to remain strong in Atlantic Canada, especially with Carney (a Nova Scotia native by birth, incidentally) at the helm. Cost-of-living is a big concern in Atlantic Canada, but these provinces also benefited from Liberal policies (like enhanced child benefits, pandemic support, etc.) and might be wary of a sharp turn to the right. If Liberals can win, say, ~20-25 of the Atlantic seats and Conservatives ~5-10, that’s another small boost to Carney’s seat tally. Poilievre did tour the region and hoped to capitalize on any discontent (for example, blaming carbon taxes for high home heating oil costs – a salient issue in the Atlantic). A wildcard: Atlantic Canada is slower to update polling, but if a late swing to Conservatives happened, it could cost Liberals a few seats here. Absent clear evidence of that, advantage: Carney in Atlantic Canada.
The regional picture: Mark Carney’s Liberals are leading in the vote-rich regions (Ontario, slight edge in Quebec, Atlantic Canada), whereas Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives will accumulate huge margins in the West but that alone won’t win the election. The math indeed looks challenging for the Conservatives if they cannot break through in either Ontario or Quebec. As the Guardian put it, the Liberals currently enjoy “a dominant lead in the most vote-rich parts of the country,” making a Liberal majority plausible and the Conservative path to victory “even more dire” under these conditions.
However, we must note: these are polls before election day. Small shifts – e.g., if Conservatives close the gap in Ontario from 7 points down to, say, 3 points – could flip a significant number of ridings. Likewise, if Liberal support in Quebec is inefficient (e.g., piling up votes in Montreal while losing close battles to the Bloc in rural areas), the seat split might tilt more Bloc, indirectly helping the Conservatives by denying Liberals seats. So, the regional advantage could narrow on election day. But going into the vote, Carney looks to have the upper hand in regions that collectively hold the majority of seats.
2. Voter Demographics & Turnout Patterns
Beyond geography, who actually turns out to vote – and the demographic makeup of each party’s support – will influence the outcome.
Age: There is typically a generational divide in Canadian politics. Younger voters (18-34) lean more towards Liberals or New Democrats, drawn by progressive issues (climate change, social justice, housing affordability). Older voters (55+) tend to lean more Conservative, often prioritizing fiscal issues, lower taxes, and traditional approaches to law and order. Middle-aged voters fall in between and are often swingy. Crucially, older voters are far more likely to vote. Turnout among seniors is reliably high, whereas turnout among the 18-34 cohort is the lowest. This means Poilievre’s base has a built-in turnout advantage demographically. The Abacus poll found evidence that Conservatives lead slightly (40% vs 39% Liberals) among those most certain to vote, suggesting an enthusiasm or demographic edge for Poilievre’s side. If youth and young adult turnout surges unusually (as sometimes happens if an issue galvanizes them – e.g., climate marches pre-2019, or perhaps in reaction to Poilievre’s social conservatism), that would benefit Liberals (and NDP/Greens). Given the stakes, there are indications of higher interest in this election across the board (57% “very interested” per Abacus, higher than 2021), so turnout could be up overall. But if we had to guess, Poilievre will benefit from the age turnout gap – it might not win him the election alone, but it could narrow the gap in a close race.
Ethnicity & Immigration Communities: Canada’s urban centers are ethnically diverse, and immigrant communities have been a bedrock of Liberal support in recent decades. The Liberals’ pro-immigration stance (increasing targets to ~500k newcomers a year) and multicultural outreach often earn them the votes of many first- and second-generation Canadians, from South Asian Canadians in Brampton to Chinese Canadians in Vancouver, Filipino Canadians, Arab Canadians, Black Canadians, etc. The Conservatives under Harper had some success wooing certain groups (for example, some Hindu and Sikh Canadians attracted by social conservatism or positions on issues like same-sex marriage, or Chinese Canadians concerned about crime and small business taxes). Under Poilievre, the Conservatives have made efforts to connect (Poilievre famously often ends speeches with phrases in Punjabi, for instance, and he has highlighted that his wife is from a Venezuelan immigrant family to showcase diversity). Still, there’s skepticism among many immigrant communities about the Conservatives, especially if any hints of xenophobia or anti-diversity emerge from fringe elements. One notable angle: India-Canada relations deteriorated in late 2024 under Trudeau (with a controversy over Sikh separatism), which might have unsettled some Indo-Canadian voters. If Carney managed to smooth that over or if Poilievre capitalized by taking a pro-India stance, there could be minor shifts in the Indo-Canadian vote. Similarly, allegations of Chinese interference in Canadian elections (which were a scandal under Trudeau) could either make Chinese-Canadian voters distrust Liberals or conversely fear Conservative hawkishness toward China. These sub-currents are hard to measure, but even small swings in ethnic communities in ridings around Toronto or Vancouver can decide seats. Historically, Liberal strength with immigrant communities has given them a big edge in suburban battlegrounds, and Carney would hope to maintain that. We will watch if Poilievre improved the Conservatives’ share with these voters; if not, it’s another structural Liberal advantage in the seat count.
Education Level: In line with trends in many Western democracies, university-educated voters in Canada lean more Liberal/left, while those with lower educational attainment (high school or college diploma) are more likely to lean Conservative. This “education polarization” has been observed in recent Canadian elections. The reasoning: higher-educated voters often have higher incomes and are socially liberal (thus like the Liberal social policies), and many in urban professions dislike Conservative stances on things like science (climate) or populist rhetoric. Lower-education voters sometimes feel left behind by the globalization that higher-educated professionals champion, and they resonate with messages of government being inefficient or the elite “Laurentian elites” (Ottawa/Montreal/Toronto) not listening – which Poilievre plays to. In 2025, Poilievre’s populist approach explicitly tries to channel the grievances of those who feel mocked or ignored by elites (for example, those upset by pandemic mandates or by perceived condescension from woke politics). This could help him among working-class voters, even some union members, in regions like rural Ontario or smaller cities. On the other hand, Carney – as a former central banker – is the elite in many ways, which could turn off those voters but conversely assures the educated class that he’s competent. We might see a stronger-than-usual Liberal skew in districts with many degree-holders (university town ridings, downtown cores), and stronger Conservative results in working-class belts (certain manufacturing towns or rural areas without universities). How that nets out nationally is unclear, but it reinforces the idea that Conservative support is more concentrated in rural/ exurban areas, and Liberal support in metropolitan areas – again affecting seat efficiency.
Income & Class: This election scrambles the usual class dynamics a bit. Historically, one might expect higher-income voters to lean Conservative (for low-tax, pro-business policies) and lower-income to lean Liberal/NDP (for social safety net). However, affordability issues have transcended income brackets – even middle-class families feel the pinch of mortgage rates and grocery bills. Poilievre’s message is aimed at “the common people” versus the elites, which is more a populist class narrative than a traditional rich vs. poor narrative. It might pull some middle-income voters who normally voted Liberal into the Conservative camp if they are frustrated enough with their economic situation. Conversely, some affluent voters in cities might actually vote Liberal out of social values or dislike of Poilievre’s style, despite Conservative policies aligning with their financial interests. There is also a small business owner vote that leans Conservative (they bristled at some of Trudeau’s tax changes on small businesses), and a unionized labor vote that has traditionally been NDP or Liberal but could see some shift – though Poilievre’s relationship with labor is not exactly warm, he has tried to appeal to blue-collar sentiments.
Turnout Factors: We touched on age turnout. Another factor is enthusiasm. Are Carney’s supporters voting for him, or mainly against Poilievre (or Trump)? Are Poilievre’s supporters primarily voting against the Liberals, or do they have a positive zeal for their guy? The Abacus data hinted that Conservative supporters were slightly more enthusiastic at that moment. Usually, anger is a better motivator for turnout than fear. Poilievre has been stoking anger at the Liberal “gatekeepers,” and the desire for change (56% definite) suggests a motivated anti-incumbent electorate. On the other hand, fear of Trump’s tariffs or Poilievre’s perceived extremism could also motivate some otherwise apathetic voters to turn out for Liberals. We might see higher turnout than 2021 (which was ~62%) given the high interest levels reported. A high-turnout election in Canada historically benefitted the Liberals (e.g., 2015 youth surge for Trudeau). But in this case, both sides have motivators: Conservatives have the “throw the bums out” energy, Liberals have the “stop the dangerous other guy” energy. It’s hard to say which will produce more actual votes. This could genuinely swing the outcome in a close race. If, for instance, young voters don’t bother because they assume Carney’s got it or aren’t inspired by him, Liberal support could be overstated in polls. Conversely, if that 56% who want change all show up, Carney is in trouble – but some of those wanting change may still reluctantly vote Liberal out of fear of something worse.
Demographics give a slight structural tilt to Conservatives (older voters, very high support in certain groups) in terms of turnout, but Liberals have advantages in the composition of the electorate (immigrant communities, educated urban voters). These factors may largely cancel out, leaving the result to be decided by other variables like issues and leadership. However, if one campaign has done markedly better at targeting and mobilizing their key demographics (for example, Poilievre using social media effectively to energize under-40 voters despite traditionally skewing older), that could be a surprise factor. We’ll assume traditional patterns hold unless evidence suggests otherwise.
3. Economic Conditions & Voter Concerns in 2025
The economy – broadly defined to include jobs, inflation, cost of living, housing, and fiscal policy – is the central battlefield of this election, as is often the case. But 2025 brings a unique economic context:
Inflation and Cost of Living: Canada experienced high inflation in 2022-2023 (peaking around 8%), and while it has moderated by 2025, prices remain elevated and wage growth hasn’t fully caught up. Many Canadians feel like they’re falling behind – groceries, gas, and utilities all cost more than a couple years ago. This has been Poilievre’s number one attack line: he famously coined the term “Justinflation” to pin soaring prices on Trudeau’s policies. He blames large deficits and money-printing (quantitative easing during the pandemic) for devaluing the currency and raising the cost of everything. Whether or not that’s the primary cause (inflation was a global phenomenon), this narrative resonated with struggling families. Polls consistently show “reducing the cost of living” at or near the top of voters’ priority list. In February, an Ipsos survey found inflation/cost-of-living was the #1 issue for Canadians, with 32% naming it as a top concern (housing affordability and healthcare were next, around 20-25%). By mid-April, Abacus found 46% still put cost-of-living in their top-two issues – the highest of any issue. This bodes well for Poilievre, as Conservatives “have regained a small but meaningful advantage” in voters’ minds on handling cost-of-living (+4 points advantage) and housing affordability (+4). Essentially, many voters agree with Poilievre’s critique or at least are willing to try a new approach since the Liberal government hasn’t fully solved these problems.
Housing Crisis: This deserves special mention. Canada’s housing prices (relative to incomes) are among the highest in the world, especially in cities like Toronto and Vancouver. A whole generation of younger Canadians feels home ownership is out of reach, and renters are facing skyrocketing rents. This issue intersects with both economic policy and immigration (increased demand), and it’s extremely salient for urban and suburban voters. Both main parties have housing plans, but they differ:
Poilievre’s approach: “Build more, blame government less.” He promises to cut red tape and deregulate zoning to spur construction, incentivize cities to speed up building permits (even threatening to withhold federal infrastructure funds from municipalities that don’t meet housing targets), sell off federal buildings to convert to housing, and generally unleash market forces to increase supply. Also, scrapping the carbon tax (to reduce building and heating costs) is part of his affordability pitch. He often says “the government is the gatekeeper blocking housing”.
Carney’s (Liberal) approach: “Government as a partner in housing.” The Liberals emphasize investments in affordable housing, such as their existing National Housing Strategy, plans to build or refurbish units, first-time homebuyer incentives, etc. Carney, while fiscally moderate, likely supports targeted interventions – e.g., low-interest loans to developers for affordable units, or grants to cities. He is also less inclined to blame immigration for housing woes, whereas some in Conservative circles hint at aligning immigration rates with housing capacity.
For a voter simply asking “who will make housing more affordable?”, it’s not immediately obvious – this issue is hotly debated. However, given that the Liberals have been in charge during the worsening of the crisis, some frustrated voters might be willing to give the Conservatives a chance on housing. Indeed, Abacus found Poilievre had a slight edge on housing in issue polling. We can say housing and cost-of-living together form the core of Poilievre’s campaign. If enough voters prioritize these above all else, it significantly boosts Poilievre’s odds.
Economic Growth, Jobs, and Recession Fears: As of early 2025, Canada’s economy is growing slowly, with some fear of a downturn especially if a trade war with the U.S. erupts. Unemployment is moderately low historically (5-6%), but could rise if interest rates remain high. The specter of a recession usually makes voters risk-averse, often sticking with the incumbent if they trust them, or jumping to the opposition if they blame the incumbent for mismanagement. It’s a mixed bag here: Carney is a renowned economist and would normally be the kind of figure people trust in a shaky economy. On the other hand, Poilievre has made lack of economic results under the Liberals a central theme – pointing to high inflation, high housing costs, and mounting federal debt ($1 trillion) as evidence of Liberal failure. If voters view the Liberal economic record negatively, that’s a checkmark for Poilievre. If they view the current situation as largely external and believe Carney’s expertise is needed, that’s a point for Carney.
Federal Deficit & Fiscal Policy: After massive pandemic spending, Canada’s deficits have been large, and the debt grew substantially from 2020-2023. Trudeau’s government never returned to balance, and in 2024-25 the deficit is a political issue. Conservatives argue that excessive spending fueled inflation and that they would rein in deficits, possibly by cutting “waste” or cancelling certain programs. Carney, being fiscally moderate, has signaled some commitment to fiscal discipline too (the Liberals might promise a path to balance eventually, but skeptics abound). While fiscal conservatism isn’t as dominant a voter concern as affordability, it does matter to some voters (particularly those worried about long-term economic stability or those in business). Poilievre’s pledge to curb “inflationary deficits” might resonate with those who believe government overspending is the root of the problem. Carney can counter by saying sudden austerity would harm services and that he can manage the debt responsibly given his background.
Oil, Gas, & Energy Policy: Energy is a significant economic issue, particularly in Alberta and Saskatchewan (oil and gas sector) but also nationally in terms of gas prices and climate policy. The Liberals introduced carbon pricing (carbon tax) nationwide – a policy hated by many conservatives who see it as driving up fuel and heating costs. Poilievre has vowed to “axe the carbon tax” on day one, framing it as a relief measure for Canadians. This is a popular message in rural areas and among anyone feeling the pinch at the pump. Conversely, many Canadians do worry about climate change and support carbon pricing in principle. However, in an election so dominated by immediate economic worries, climate concerns may take a backseat for some swing voters. Carney, interestingly, has a strong background in climate finance (he’s advocated for sustainable investing globally). He likely supports the carbon tax and other climate measures but might not campaign on them heavily aside from attacking Poilievre’s scrapping plan as short-sighted.
If gas prices spiked or something, that could influence some voters last-minute toward Poilievre. If wildfires or floods (climate-linked disasters) were front-page news, that could remind voters of long-term issues favoring Liberal policy. But in spring 2025, the immediate economic angle of energy (cost) seems to outweigh the environmental angle, which again modestly helps Poilievre.
Trade & International Economics: This is where the Trump tariff threat comes in. Trump’s actions have effectively made “Canada-U.S. trade and economic sovereignty” a top issue. Ipsos noted that by Feb 2025, concern about the Canada-U.S. relationship jumped to third place on the priority list, surpassing even housing, as Trump’s threats loomed. It also found this issue is especially concerning to older voters and Liberal voters – a telling sign that it plays to Carney’s base. Carney’s campaign presumably emphasized his ability to handle negotiations with Washington, pointing to his experience in global finance and perhaps highlighting any conversations he’s had with U.S. officials to defuse the situation. If voters are voting based on who can best protect Canada’s economy from Trump’s tariffs, Carney wins hands down – and indeed the polls show among those who prioritize “dealing with Trump,” Liberals lead Conservatives by a wide margin. However, not everyone places U.S. trade at the top. Abacus found that as of mid-April, 33% put “dealing with Trump” among their top-two issues (down a bit from earlier), while 46% put cost-of-living in top-two. Thus, the election became a tug-of-war between these two issue frames: Carney’s team wants it to be “Trump vs. Canada”, Poilievre’s wants it to be “Life is expensive and it’s Ottawa’s fault”. Both are real and salient. The outcome will, in part, be decided by which narrative ultimately motivates more voters.
The economic and pocketbook issues are paramount and somewhat conflicting in effect. Cost-of-living and housing concerns clearly bolster the case for change (helping Poilievre), whereas the trade war threat and general economic stewardship concerns bolster the case for experienced leadership (helping Carney). As the campaign progressed, there was a noted shift: the frame shifted from “Trump” back to “change”. Abacus highlighted a specific question asking voters what would decide their vote: 55% said a “change in direction and policy” (i.e., change government) vs 45% who said the party best able to handle Trump. Earlier, a majority might have said Trump was the bigger factor, but now change has overtaken it. This is a crucial signal: it shows Poilievre’s narrative regained some traction as immediate fears of the trade war plateaued.
We should also note other economic-related issues: Healthcare funding (health is both a social and economic issue, given the strain on budgets and services) – the Liberals promised more money to provinces, Conservatives also would fund but perhaps with more strings or openness to private options. It’s a top concern for many (in polls, healthcare often ranks 2nd after cost-of-living), but both parties largely agree on wanting shorter wait times, etc., so it might not be a differentiator unless Conservatives’ tough-on-crime approach (building jails vs funding hospitals, as Liberals might frame it) sways some. Education and childcare – Liberals brought $10-a-day childcare in deals with provinces; Conservatives might keep it or modify it. Such policies affect family budgets and could matter to some, but Poilievre hasn’t campaigned hard against childcare subsidies (likely not wanting to alienate young families).
Bottom line: The election will likely be decided by how voters weigh their personal economic hardship versus their confidence in national economic leadership. Many will be asking: Am I (and my family) financially better or worse off than a few years ago? and Do I trust Pierre or Mark to fix or protect the situation? The answers to those will drive the vote.
4. Leadership, Campaign Strategy, Media Narratives
The contrast between Pierre Poilievre and Mark Carney is stark, providing a clear choice in personality and style. Each has tailored his campaign to highlight his strengths and his opponent’s perceived weaknesses.
Pierre Poilievre (Conservative Leader) – The Populist Firebrand.
Poilievre, 46, is a career politician (elected since 2004) but has rebranded himself as an anti-establishment crusader. His leadership of the Conservatives has been marked by a confrontational style and savvy use of social media to speak directly to Canadians who feel left out.
Messaging & Appeal: Poilievre’s slogan could well be “Take Back Control” (not literally, but in spirit) – he channels frustrations much like Brexit/Trump-style campaigns did, though within a Canadian context. He has railed against “gatekeepers” – a term he uses for bureaucrats, regulators, and liberal technocrats who he claims block people from opportunity (be it housing development, small businesses, or resource projects). He promises to remove the gatekeepers and empower ordinary Canadians. This rhetorical approach “has inspired a fervent response from his supporters, who say he has given a voice to those who feel ignored and mocked by political elites.” Many of his core supporters indeed feel that the traditional system (which Carney epitomizes) doesn’t work for them.
Key Promises & Platform: Poilievre’s platform centers on affordability (as detailed earlier: scrapping carbon tax, tax cuts, incentivizing homebuilding, cutting government waste) and law & order. He has promised to “crack down on crime” with stricter sentences, even stating he’d use “an arcane constitutional mechanism” (the notwithstanding clause) to override charter rights if needed to keep dangerous offenders jailed. This is controversial (breaching the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not taken lightly in Canada), but it’s meant to project toughness. He’s also taken a hard line on drug policy (criticizing safe injection sites, favouring treatment over “liberal” approaches) and on issues like bail reform. On the economy, beyond inflation, he’s pro-innovation in a populist way – for example, he has been a proponent of cryptocurrency freedom, even holding some Bitcoin himself, pitching it as a way for Canadians to opt out of inflation (though this is a niche issue, it earned him a following among some younger tech-savvy libertarians).
Persona & Rhetoric: Poilievre is adept at the viral soundbite. He often produces videos of himself grilling officials or giving monologues about a common man (e.g., “Meet Joe, he can’t afford his house…”). He is fluent in both English and French, which helps in Quebec, though his style is more combative than Quebecers typically like. He positioned himself as “For the People” (though not explicitly using that phrase like Doug Ford did in Ontario). His detractors brand him as a “far-right” or “Canadian Trump-lite” figure, pointing to his support for the Freedom Convoy protest against vaccine mandates in 2022 and his attacks on the Bank of Canada’s credibility. In this campaign, Poilievre likely moderated some tone to attract swing voters, but he did not shy from labeling the Liberal tenure a disaster and using sharp language. Media narratives often emphasize his populism and the question of whether he has broadened appeal beyond his base.
Media & Debates: Poilievre, having been an opposition pitbull for years, is usually strong in debates and Q&A. If the debates (one in French, one in English in mid-April) went well for him, it could reassure unsure voters that he’s not just a bomb-thrower but can handle the job. On the other hand, Carney likely highlighted Poilievre’s lack of experience in governance and any extreme positions. The media have scrutinized Poilievre’s past – e.g., his flirting with conspiracy-ish rhetoric (like talking about “global elites” or his stance on central bank policies). But he’s tried to pivot from the more fringe associations (he distanced from the more radical elements of the convoy and focuses on mainstream economic pain now). Still, one narrative is “Is Poilievre too extreme for Canada?” which Carney’s team subtly pushes.
Strengths: Poilievre is hungry and a skilled campaigner. He has unified most of the right-wing vote (the PPC’s Maxime Bernier is a non-factor now). He taps into genuine grievances and can articulate them in simple terms. He’s also been disciplined in keeping the focus on Liberal failings. Additionally, being the advocate of “change,” he benefits from that powerful current. His base is highly motivated.
Weaknesses: Poilievre’s style can alienate moderates. His favorability ratings were negative overall (net -3) as of mid-April, whereas Carney was +13. That indicates many have an unfavorable view of him – perhaps finding him too angry or untrustworthy. Women voters, in particular, pollsters say, have been less receptive to Poilievre (a similar phenomenon as with Trump or other populists, where the aggressive style polls worse among women on average). Also, Poilievre has no governing experience; he was a cabinet minister only briefly (in a minor portfolio under Harper). Against a resume like Carney’s, that contrast might worry some voters. Finally, his association with the more radical elements (e.g., convoy supporters who carried Confederate flags or his MPs who might spout controversial statements) can be a liability if highlighted.
Mark Carney (Liberal Leader and Prime Minister) – The Technocrat Turned Politician.
Carney, 59, is an economist by training and spent years as a central banker, making him a unique candidate for PM. This is his first foray into electoral politics, and he had mere weeks to go from Liberal leader to election campaigner.
Background & Image: Carney was often described in media as a “rock star central banker” for his successful tenure as Governor of the Bank of Canada (2008-2013) during the global financial crisis and then as Governor of the Bank of England (2013-2020). His international reputation for economic competence is sterling. However, he’s never been a retail politician. The Liberals sold him as a steady, competent, and unifying figure who could rise above partisan squabbles – the antidote to both Trudeau fatigue and Poilievre’s bombast. He positions himself as fiscally prudent but socially progressive (centrist Liberal). Carney’s campaign strategy has been to run on his “resume” and a promise of stability. One might summarize his pitch as: “Serious times call for serious leadership.” This implicitly contrasts him with Poilievre, whom the Liberals cast as a risky populist.
Key Messages & Platform: Carney largely inherits the Liberal platform, but with his own emphasis:
Economic Stewardship: He emphasizes protecting Canada from global economic turbulence. Responding to Trump’s tariffs has been front-and-center – Carney likely touts his relationships and knowledge to navigate this, and may have already engaged in diplomacy to blunt the impact (which he would highlight as an example of effective leadership). The Liberals under Carney also pledge targeted affordability measures: perhaps expanding the GST tax credit, increasing the Canada Child Benefit, or direct payments to help with high grocery bills (Trudeau did a temporary “grocery rebate”). Carney’s message is not “everything’s fine,” but rather “I know it’s tough out there – I have the expertise to guide us through without wrecking the ship.”
Housing: As noted, a mix of incentives for building and federal investments. Carney might also leverage his financial background to propose creative housing finance solutions (e.g., incentivizing pension funds to invest in rental housing construction, etc.).
Trump/Foreign Policy: Carney portrays himself as the one who “will never let Canada be bullied”. Expect rhetoric about standing up to the U.S. if needed, working with allies, and not rolling over. His tone is firm but calm, versus Poilievre who sometimes can seem reflexively anti-Trudeau but without foreign policy depth. Carney can point to actual negotiations he’s done at international levels.
Social Issues and Values: The Liberals likely reminded voters of Poilievre’s willingness to override the Charter and other potentially concerning stances. Carney has kept the Liberal banner on social issues: pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ rights, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, etc. While these have not dominated the campaign, the Liberal strategy in past elections involved highlighting any Conservative misstep on these fronts to win over socially liberal Red Tories or motivated progressive base. If any Conservative candidates made controversial comments (for example, on abortion or conspiracy theories), the Liberals would amplify it. Essentially, Carney wants to present a modern, compassionate image of leadership versus an opponent they paint as backward or dangerous on certain values.
Clean Energy/Climate: Given Carney’s personal advocacy on climate, it’s likely he included strong climate commitments. But he must balance that with not exacerbating cost-of-living concerns. He might emphasize Canada’s potential in green industries and promise jobs in those sectors (continuing Trudeau’s line about transitioning to a clean economy). Meanwhile, warn that Poilievre’s climate stance (repealing carbon tax, etc.) is irresponsible and will harm Canada’s international standing and environment. Climate voters (especially youth) need to be reassured by Carney to prevent bleed to NDP/Green.
Persona and Campaigning Style: Carney is composed, articulate, and intellectually sharp, but relatively new to glad-handing voters. By accounts, he managed the initial phase well – projecting confidence in press conferences. He does have to guard against coming off as too “establishment” or cold. He’s not a natural retail politician like, say, Bill Clinton. So the campaign likely focused on set-piece speeches, townhalls where his mastery of detail shines, and fewer unscripted moments. One interesting aspect is Carney’s temperament: by not being a career politician, he might seem more genuine or he might commit gaffes out of inexperience. So far, it seems he avoided major gaffes. The debates were a critical test: Carney needed to show he can spar and think on his feet in a political debate. If he held his own or bested Poilievre (especially in the English debate watched by millions), that would cement him as a credible PM in voters’ minds.
Media Narrative: The media initially framed Carney as the savior of the Liberal Party and a heavyweight on the economy. As the campaign went on, stories likely shifted to “Liberals surge with Carney, now can they maintain the lead?” and then to “tightening race down the stretch.” Carney’s challenge was to avoid being labeled just an “elite banker out of touch.” Conservative media attempted to find dirt such as Carney’s personal wealth or past statements. For instance, there were attacks that Carney once used tax loopholes or that he’s a Davos-attending globalist, trying to undercut his image. Carney largely deflected these by focusing on what he can do for Canadians. He even tried to cast himself as above partisan mudslinging, though in practice the Liberal campaign did throw barbs at Poilievre plenty.
Strengths: Personal favorability – Carney was the most popular leader among the major parties during the campaign. His net favorables stayed positive (+13) whereas Poilievre’s were slightly negative. This suggests Carney has a reservoir of goodwill, possibly from people who knew him as an economic figurehead rather than a politician. Also, he can unite moderates – some centrist conservatives (Red Tories) might actually prefer Carney to Poilievre, as Carney’s essentially a fiscally conservative, socially moderate figure (in another era, he could have been a Progressive Conservative). Competence narrative – voters often give benefit of doubt to someone with a successful track record in their field. And Carney’s handling of the early Trump crisis gave him an aura of statesmanship that countered his lack of elected experience.
Weaknesses: Incumbency baggage – While Carney is new, the Liberals have been in power for 10 years. Poilievre insists a vote for Carney is a vote for more of the same (just swapping the frontman). Any lingering anger at Trudeau’s record can stick to Carney. Also, Carney being unelected (until this snap election) raises democratic questions: Poilievre called him “just another unelected Liberal elitist.” Additionally, Carney’s lack of campaign experience means he could underperform if situations get hairy (e.g., handling a scandal on the fly). There is also the enthusiasm factor: while many respect Carney, do they feel passionate about him? Poilievre’s base would walk over hot coals to vote; Carney’s voters might be more lukewarm, coming mainly out of rejection of the alternative or mild approval. That could affect turnout and ground game. Finally, Carney must avoid seeming condescending or technocratic – politics often punishes the “smartest guy in the room” if he can’t relate. The Liberals likely tried to humanize Carney (highlighting his Canadian roots, perhaps his family – he’s married with kids – and maybe his hockey or community interests) to prevent an image of a distant banker.
Media & Narrative Summary: The narrative of this election crystallized into “Fear vs. Anger”, as many elections do. The Liberals (and much of the mainstream media framing) emphasize fear of what Poilievre represents – instability, extremism, conflict with the U.S., cuts to social programs, etc. The Conservatives emphasize anger at what the Liberals have done – making life less affordable, being corrupt or elitist, ignoring ordinary people’s pain. Each side, of course, also offered a positive vision (Carney: steady leadership for a secure future; Poilievre: empowering Canadians to thrive again). But the emotional undercurrents are fear and anger. Whichever emotion is more dominant may decide the outcome: If fear of change/Poilievre outweighs anger at the status quo, Liberals win. If anger overwhelms fear, Conservatives win.
We saw this play out in 2015 (anger at Harper helped Trudeau), 2019 (fear of Scheer’s social conservatism and of change helped Trudeau hang on), 2021 (fear of COVID and Conservative approaches helped Trudeau again narrowly). Now in 2025, initially fear of Trump’s war overshadowed anger at Liberals, but anger has been creeping back in. Media coverage of debates, campaign gaffes, etc., in the final days could tip that balance slightly one way or the other.
5. Third-Party Influences: NDP, Bloc, and Others
Although the question focuses on Carney vs Poilievre, no forecast is complete without considering the role of other parties, because they can indirectly determine who wins by siphoning votes or partnering in a minority government. We will focus on how they affect the chances of the two main contenders:
New Democratic Party (NDP) – Leader: Jagmeet Singh: The NDP is ideologically to the left of the Liberals, championing issues like income inequality, pharmacare, and more aggressive climate action. In the previous Parliament, Singh’s NDP had a confidence-and-supply agreement with Trudeau’s Liberals, propping up the Liberal minority government since 2021. This proximity to the Liberals might have hurt the NDP’s distinct appeal – they were seen as too cozy with the government. Throughout 2024, NDP polling support dwindled as progressive voters looked for the most viable alternative to Conservatives (which under first-past-the-post often means the Liberals). When Carney took over, this effect intensified: polls showed a collapse in NDP support by 4 points in one late-February survey, as many left-leaning voters migrated to the rejuvenated Liberals. By April, NDP polling was around 10-15% nationally (Abacus had 11%). This is lower than the ~18% they won in 2021.
Impact on Carney vs Poilievre: In general, a weaker NDP benefits the Liberals. Every point of vote share that moves from NDP to Liberal in a riding could be the difference in beating a Conservative there. The Conservatives, of course, would prefer a strong NDP that splits the anti-Conservative vote. So far, 2025 seems to be a classic squeeze where many NDP sympathizers strategically or willingly back Carney to stop Poilievre. Singh has struggled to get attention with the two main narratives (cost-of-living and Trump) crowding out his space – though he too talks about affordability, many voters figure Carney can implement progressive policies with more chance of governing.
In specific ridings, the NDP still matters: In urban British Columbia and parts of Ontario (Toronto, Hamilton), the NDP has incumbent MPs. If those NDP votes remain relatively high, they could allow Conservatives to win certain three-way races with, say, 35% while Libs and NDP split 60%. Conversely, if Liberals take over NDP votes, they can win those ridings. For example, if in a given Vancouver suburb it’s Con 35, Lib 33, NDP 30, the Conservative wins – but if enough NDP voters shift Liberal making it Con 35, Lib 45, NDP 15, the Liberal wins. So far, polls like Ipsos indicated NDP support declining as Liberal support rose – evidence of that strategic consolidation.
Post-election role: In the event of a minority government, the NDP’s stance could be decisive. If Carney falls short of a majority but the Parliament is hung, the NDP would almost certainly support a Liberal-led government (as they did Trudeau’s) rather than allow Poilievre to govern. This means even if Poilievre wins slightly more seats, he might still be kept out of power if Carney can form a coalition or arrangement with Singh. This scenario is controversial but constitutionally possible. It gives Carney an edge in “forming government” odds if it’s very close. (Polymarket’s market is “Next Prime Minister” which presumably factors this in – Carney could remain PM in a minority with NDP backing, as an example.)
Jagmeet Singh factor: Singh himself is personally liked by many, but his inability to differentiate from Liberals right now has put him in a tough spot. If he performed exceptionally well in debates, he might win back a few left voters (which ironically could harm Carney). However, given the high stakes, many leftists will stick with Carney. So the NDP is likely to have a smaller caucus after this election, but that might just cement a Liberal plurality. Net effect: the NDP’s weakness is a tailwind for Carney, whereas any unexpected NDP resilience would indirectly benefit Poilievre by splitting the anti-Conservative vote.
Bloc Québécois – Leader: Yves-François Blanchet: The Bloc is a pro-Quebec sovereigntist party that only competes in Quebec. They held 32 seats in the last Parliament. The Bloc’s influence is essentially to take seats that might otherwise go Liberal or, less often, Conservative. Blanchet is a savvy campaigner for Quebec’s interests. Earlier in 2025, there were signs the Bloc was dipping slightly in polls (perhaps as some Quebecers gave Carney a look, or due to the “Trump threat” causing rallying around federalist parties). Ipsos noted Bloc support down 3 points as Liberals surged in Feb. The Abacus mid-April numbers (Bloc 36% in QC vs Lib 36%) show a tight race. If Carney persuades soft nationalist voters that keeping Canada united and strong (vs Trump) is paramount, some Bloc voters might vote Liberal. However, if Quebecers are disillusioned with both main options (not wanting a Tory but not enamored with Liberals either), the Bloc could still win ~30+ seats.
Impact: The Bloc doesn’t ally with anyone federally (they only support what’s good for Quebec). For Carney, every seat the Bloc takes is one less for Liberals (or rarely Conservatives). But given Conservatives are not a huge factor in Quebec, a strong Bloc mainly harms the Liberals’ seat total. If Carney is to secure a majority, he likely needs to limit Bloc gains and win perhaps 40 seats in Quebec. If the Bloc holds around 30 seats, that makes a Liberal majority harder, but as long as the Bloc is taking those seats instead of Conservatives, Carney can still win a plurality and govern with a minority.
There’s also a scenario: if the election yielded, say, Conservatives 150 seats, Liberals 140, Bloc 35, NDP 10, Greens 1, Carney could theoretically partner with the NDP and even tacitly the Bloc to remain PM despite Conservatives being the largest single party. Bloc might support some Liberal initiatives in exchange for autonomy guarantees. But those are post-election hypotheticals.
Net effect: The Bloc is mostly a spoiler. Carney’s chances of a clear win improve if the Bloc vote softens in favor of Liberals in Quebec. Conversely, if Quebec voters decide to sit out the main fight and stick with the Bloc, Liberals lose potential pickups – however, that indirectly could help Poilievre if it denies Liberals a majority and keeps Carney reliant on other parties (though Poilievre still wouldn’t win Quebec seats himself).
Green Party: The Greens hold 2 seats (as of dissolution) and are polling very low (around 2-3%). They are not a major factor in this election’s outcome except in a couple of specific ridings on Vancouver Island. Most Green-inclined voters will vote NDP or Liberal this time because the climate issue isn’t front and center and they’re more worried about the government outcome. No significant impact on the main contest.
People’s Party of Canada (PPC): Maxime Bernier’s far-right populist PPC gained ~5% of vote in 2021 but won no seats. In 2025, PPC has been scarcely visible – many of its supporters have folded into Poilievre’s movement, as he addresses some of their anti-establishment and freedom concerns. Bernier himself lost a by-election in 2022 and the party seems to have fizzled. If any remnants of PPC run, they might peel off a small number of votes in some rural areas, but likely not enough to matter. Poilievre has successfully consolidated the right-wing vote, preventing vote-splitting on his side (unlike the left with Liberals/NDP). This consolidation is a plus for Conservative chances – e.g., if PPC voters had still been 5% separate, Liberals could win more ridings due to split votes on the right. Now, Poilievre doesn’t have that problem to nearly the same extent.
Independents/Other fringe: Unlikely to factor in except maybe one or two quirky local races.
Third parties shape the election indirectly. The NDP and Greens’ decline funnels votes to Liberals (good for Carney), while the Bloc’s strength in Quebec limits Liberal gains there (which could hurt Carney’s ability to lock in a win, but doesn’t directly benefit Poilievre much). The collapse of the PPC and Poilievre’s absorption of that base mean the right-wing vote is unified (good for Poilievre). Overall, the third-party landscape in 2025 is favorable to a two-party showdown. It’s almost a quasi two-party system fight in much of Canada: “Blue vs. Red” with others in the wings. This polarization often helps clarify the choice for voters but also means slight shifts within the anti-incumbent or anti-Conservative camps (NDP ↔ Liberal) can swing pivotal seats.
6. Most Predictive Issues for 2025: Separating Signal from Noise
While many topics are discussed during a campaign, not all move votes.
Based on the data and dynamics, the issues most likely to predict the election outcome in 2025 – meaning the issues that correlate with how voters decide between Carney and Poilievre – are:
Affordability/Cost of Living: By far the top concern for the broadest swath of voters. If, going into the ballot box, voters are primarily thinking about their grocery bill, rent or mortgage, and gas tank, and if they blame the incumbent for those being high, they are likely to vote Conservative. Abacus data shows among the 46% who list cost-of-living as a top concern, Poilievre’s Conservatives lead by 11 points (46% to 35%). That’s a significant tilt. This issue is a strong predictor: the more salient inflation and cost pressures are, the better Poilievre will do. It is the bread-and-butter issue of this campaign, analogous to “the economy, stupid” in the 1990s U.S. context. The campaign saw a rise in cost-of-living salience in mid-April, which coincided with Conservative tightening – evidence that this is a key signal.
Desire for Change vs. Fear of the Alternative: This isn’t a single policy issue, but a psychological one. Polls measuring “time for a change” are highly predictive of incumbent fate. At 56% definitely wanting change, this indicator is flashing warning signs for the Liberals. Historically, when that number crosses 50%, it’s hard for the incumbent to win the popular vote. However, Carney’s unique situation (new leader) complicates it. If that number holds or grows, and if those people indeed vote for change, Poilievre likely wins. If some of those people are appeased by the partial change (Trudeau gone) or scared off from Poilievre, then Carney can overcome it. Thus, the change vs. continuity sentiment is a huge predictor. It ties in various issues (scandals, fatigue, economic pinch) into one measure. Currently it favors Poilievre (majority want change), but it’s not absolute – some want change but may still reluctantly stick with Liberals due to fear of Trump/Poilievre, etc. The interplay of this with the next issue is critical.
U.S. Relations / Trump Factor: A highly unusual situation where a foreign leader’s actions became a ballot issue. For weeks, talk of Trump’s tariffs and even his “Liberation Day” rhetoric (pretending Canada wants to join the U.S.) filled Canadian media. Abacus found that among the one-third of voters who prioritize “dealing with Trump,” Liberals lead by about 24-34 points in vote preference. In other words, if a voter’s top concern is protecting Canada from U.S. pressure, they are overwhelmingly likely to choose Carney’s Liberals. This essentially became Carney’s ace issue – it provided him the momentum shift needed. The question is how many voters prioritize this above all else. It seems to have been higher earlier and slightly declining in urgency as no immediate tariff has hit yet. But it’s still a big chunk. If an escalation or some headline occurred right before voting (say Trump announcing an actual tariff effective next month), it could refocus voters on this, benefitting Carney. Conversely, if it continues to fade and voters think the worst is over or it was bluster, then those inclined for change won’t be dissuaded. So the “Trump vs Canada” issue is a predictor for Carney’s support – the more it dominates, the better his odds.
Leadership Trust & Competence: Voters’ relative approval of Carney vs Poilievre is a soft but important factor. Polls on “Preferred Prime Minister” showed Carney leading by as much as 6-9 points during the campaign. If that holds, typically the leader with the advantage there often sees his party do well (though not always – Trudeau led Scheer on best PM in 2019 but still lost popular vote). However, in a close race, personal likes can sway swing voters. Carney’s net positive favorability suggests some Conservative-curious voters might hold back and stick with Liberals because they like Carney or dislike Poilievre. On Election Day, if Liberals end up doing a bit better than expected, it could be due to that leadership preference kicking in once the voter is in the booth (some might think “Poilievre’s ideas sound good, but I just don’t want him as PM”). Alternatively, if Poilievre has managed to soften his image enough to close that gap, then that predictive power wanes. We consider leadership image a signal, albeit one that’s intertwined with the above issues. It’s telling that even as the horse-race tightened, Carney maintained a lead on “Preferred PM” by around 6 points – implying a potential shy Conservative voter phenomenon (i.e., some voters might prefer Carney as PM but still vote for their local Conservative candidate out of desire for change – a conflict in preferences).
Housing Market & Interest Rates: Within the broader cost-of-living, the housing affordability situation and recent interest rate hikes (which dramatically increased mortgage payments for anyone renewing) is a micro-predictor. Regions with the most overheated housing (Toronto, Vancouver) have many voters who are house-poor or renting expensively. If these voters break heavily one way – e.g., young renters flocking to NDP or Liberal because they fear Conservative spending cuts, or middle-class mortgage holders going Conservative because they’re angry at rates – it could tilt key ridings. Typically, incumbent governments are blamed for housing woes, so this is likely another underlying driver for a protest vote (signal for Poilievre). On the flip side, if any voters credit Carney for maybe stabilizing things or fear that a Conservative government might cause a housing market crash with spending cuts, they might stick with Libs.
Criminal Justice & Social Stability: Poilievre pushed law-and-order (pledging to fix what he calls a catch-and-release bail system, etc.). Crime is rising as a concern in some urban centers (anecdotally increased violence on transit, etc.). If this issue resonates, it could help Poilievre particularly in suburbs where safety becomes an election issue. It’s probably secondary to economic concerns for most, but it might predict some swings in specific ridings or with certain demographics (e.g., some immigrant communities that are very concerned about safety might lean towards the tough-on-crime message).
Healthcare & Pandemic Aftermath: While health care usually ranks high when pollsters ask generally, it hasn’t been the top distinguishing issue here because all parties pledge to support public healthcare (with nuances). However, the lingering effects of the pandemic (like backlogs, or sentiments about mandates) might influence some. Poilievre’s base includes those upset with how Trudeau handled COVID (vaccine mandates, Emergencies Act for the convoy protest). If that memory drives some voters, they’re already likely Poilievre voters. On healthcare funding, if any province’s healthcare crisis flares (ER closures etc.), incumbent Liberals could get blame or, alternatively, fear of Conservative spending restraint might keep people from switching. This issue is likely more noise in terms of deciding Liberal vs Conservative in 2025, because there’s consensus the system needs fixing and both say they’ll invest (the differences are not as starkly felt by voters as cost-of-living or climate policy).
Climate Change: As noted, not top-of-mind in this campaign compared to economy or Trump. Those to whom climate is the #1 issue are likely voting Liberal or NDP or Green anyway (they wouldn’t go Conservative given Poilievre’s positions). So climate’s predictive power is mainly on whether some progressive voters are satisfied enough with Liberal climate plans to stick with Carney or defect to NDP/Green. Given the strategic voting climate, most will stick with Liberals, so climate isn’t swinging between Liberal and Conservative much. It’s more about Liberal vs further left. Therefore, climate is a bit of a noise factor in determining the next PM (it’s important long-term, but probably not changing the outcome in 2025).
Corruption/Ethics: Sometimes elections are decided by scandals (e.g., Sponsorship scandal in 2006). Trudeau had ethics scandals (WE Charity, SNC-Lavalin) but Carney is untainted by those. Poilievre hasn’t had a major personal scandal (some minor controversies like expense claims, but nothing big). Both parties will always throw mud (e.g., Conservative ads claiming Liberal insiders profit off policies, Liberal ads pointing to some unsavory endorsements of Poilievre). These likely cancel out or don’t register much given bigger issues. Unless something dramatic dropped (none did by mid-campaign), ethics aren’t a key vote driver now. Thus, likely noise in terms of outcome prediction.
In distilling signal vs. noise: The signals are clearly the economic pain points and stability vs change trade-off. The noise includes many day-to-day campaign developments or lesser issues that pundits talk about but average voters may not base their decision on. For example, a heated exchange in a debate might dominate a news cycle but if it’s about a niche issue, it probably doesn’t move the needle. Likewise, the exact details of each party’s platform get a lot of media analysis (like whose housing plan is more feasible), but many voters vote on broader impressions and leadership rather than fine-print.
We are cautious not to overfit to any one data point. For instance, just because one poll or one pundit suggests a certain outcome, we use a holistic approach. We considered trends, historical precedents, and multiple sources. This ensures that our forecast balances the key signals appropriately.
Quantitative Win Probabilities for Carney & Poilievre (April 2025)
Bringing together all the qualitative and quantitative factors above, we now estimate the probability of each candidate emerging as Prime Minister after the 2025 election.
This essentially asks: Given what we know now, how often would we expect a Liberal (Carney) victory vs a Conservative (Poilievre) victory if this scenario played out many times?
Based on the analysis:
Mark Carney (Liberal): ~65-70% chance of winning (roughly two-thirds probability). This means we consider a Carney victory (Liberals forming the government, likely with Carney continuing as PM) to be more likely than not. The reasons:
Current polling averages show the Liberals with a lead, albeit a narrow one. If the election reflects the polls even roughly, Liberals would win either a plurality or possibly a majority of seats. Even a 2-point national lead for Liberals could translate to them winning, say, 10-20 more seats than Conservatives, given distribution.
Carney’s advantages in Ontario and potentially enough of Quebec are a buffer that gives him multiple paths to victory (either a majority by sweeping those regions or a minority supported by NDP if needed).
The “incumbency advantage” in terms of coalition formation: In a hung parliament, Carney has partners (## Quantitative Win Probabilities: Who Is Favored to Win?
Considering all the evidence, we now turn to a probabilistic forecast. It’s important to emphasize that while Mark Carney’s Liberals have the edge as of now, there remains significant uncertainty.
Using a combination of current polling, historical performance, and the structural factors discussed, we estimate the chances of each candidate as follows:
Mark Carney (Liberal Party) – ~70% chance of winning (approximately 2-in-3 odds). This means we believe Carney is favored to remain Prime Minister after the election, most likely by winning at least a plurality of seats (and possibly a majority). The Liberals’ slight lead in polls, more efficient vote distribution, and Carney’s ability to find support from smaller parties post-election (if necessary) contribute to this advantage. Importantly, all 12 Canadian polling firms currently show the Liberals ahead, some suggesting a majority government outcome, which underpins this probability. However, 70% is far from certain – there’s a solid chance that things could break against him.
Pierre Poilievre (Conservative Party) – ~30% chance of winning (approximately 1-in-3 odds). Poilievre is the underdog but a credible one. A 30% chance reflects that a Conservative victory is quite possible if multiple factors align in their favor: e.g., if there’s even a small polling error underestimating Conservative support (especially among “silent” voters), if Poilievre’s turnout indeed outstrips Carney’s, or if late deciders break for “change.” Recall that earlier this year, Conservatives had been overwhelming favorites, so a Poilievre upset is not outlandish. It would likely manifest as the Conservatives narrowly winning the most seats (perhaps aided by just enough breakthroughs in Ontario or unexpected flips elsewhere) while the Liberal vote is somewhat overconcentrated.
These percentages are our best point estimates. It’s prudent to consider a margin of error. One way to gauge uncertainty is to note that polls have margins and that late swings can occur.
If we were to give confidence intervals, we might say Carney’s true win probability could reasonably be anywhere from ~60% up to ~80%, and Poilievre’s from ~20% to ~40%, given the fluid situation. But 70/30 encapsulates the current balance of evidence.
To illustrate why Carney is favored ~70% despite only a ~2-point poll lead (which sounds closer to 50/50), remember:
Vote efficiency & scenario breadth: Carney can win even with a tied or slightly losing popular vote (due to seat distribution), and he has the potential backing of the NDP in a minority scenario. Poilievre likely needs at least a couple-point popular vote lead to secure more seats, and has no natural coalition partner if he falls short. That asymmetry gives Carney more “paths” to victory in a close race.
Current momentum: Although the race tightened, Carney is still perceived by many as the likely winner (48% of Canadians expect a Liberal win vs 32% expecting Conservative), which might influence strategic voters to stick with the perceived front-runner to “play it safe.”
Historical base: It’s relatively rare for a party that has trailed so badly (25-point deficit in polls just months ago) to fully turn it around and then lose again. If Liberals accomplished the swing to lead the polls, it suggests genuine momentum. Conversely, if Conservatives go from 25 points up to losing, that’s a dramatic collapse – not impossible, but historically, once the wind shifts like this, it usually carries through election day barring a reversal.
However, Poilievre’s ~30% chance is non-trivial. To analogize, it’s roughly the probability that a fair coin flipped twice comes up heads both times – unlikely, but hardly extraordinary. Canadian elections have surprised forecasters before (e.g., 2012 Alberta provincial election where polls were wrong). If Poilievre does win, it likely will be by a slim margin – either a narrow Conservative minority or a hard-fought small majority if things really break his way in seat counts.
Which Inputs Matter Most (Signal) vs. Which Are Noise?
In arriving at these odds, we weighted certain inputs more heavily:
Poll Averages (especially regionals) – strong signal.
Shift in “time for change” sentiment – strong signal (benefits Poilievre, and we have baked this into his 30%).
Economic indicators (inflation, housing) – strong signal (benefits Poilievre, but moderated by Carney’s trust advantage).
Trump factor and national security angle – strong signal (benefits Carney, and a key reason his odds aren’t lower).
Leadership favorability and experience – moderate signal (Carney’s edge here buttresses his probability a bit).
Debate performance and campaign events – potentially a signal if there were a clear win; assume they roughly tied or each shored up their base, so likely minor effect.
Minor issues or gaffes – mostly noise; no game-changing scandal emerged.
Individual endorsement or candidate local issues – noise at macro level.
We have been careful not to overfit to any one poll or event. For instance, a single poll showing a sudden swing or one pundit’s take was not given undue weight. Instead, the trend over multiple polls (Liberals’ lead shrinking but still existent) was considered.
Similarly, while the Polymarket odds heavily favor Carney, we critically assessed whether that might be an overcorrection by market participants focusing on latest polls and possibly underweighting the potential for polling error or turnout effects.
Prediction Markets & Betting Analysis
Current Betting Odds (Polymarket): On the prediction market Polymarket, the market for “Who will be the next Prime Minister of Canada after the election?” reflects the probabilities we mentioned:
Mark Carney (Liberal) – trading around $0.74 to $0.75, implying roughly a 74-75% chance of being PM (since a “Yes” share pays $1 if he becomes PM).
Pierre Poilievre (Conservative) – trading around $0.25 to $0.26, implying roughly a 25-26% chance of being PM.
These numbers are as of mid-April 2025. They indicate that the market (collectively, bettors putting real money down) is even a bit more bullish on Carney than our assessment, essentially saying Carney is a 3-to-1 favorite. The market’s movement has mirrored the campaign: Polymarket initially had Poilievre as a heavy favorite (over 70% in February (New Canadian P.M. Carney Closes Gap on Polymarket with BTC-Friendly Poilievre)), but by March Carney closed the gap to roughly even (New Canadian P.M. Carney Closes Gap on Polymarket with BTC-Friendly Poilievre), and by April Carney pulled ahead significantly, reflecting the polls and narrative momentum.
Is There a Market Inefficiency (Alpha)? The core of finding “alpha” is to identify where our estimated true probabilities differ from the market odds. Comparing:
Our view: Carney ~70%, Poilievre ~30%.
Market view: Carney ~75%, Poilievre ~25%.
There is a slight divergence: we believe Poilievre’s chances (30%) are higher than the market’s price (25%). Conversely, we think Carney’s true chance (70%) is a bit lower than the market’s (75%). This suggests a potential market inefficiency: the market may be overestimating Carney and underestimating Poilievre by about 5 percentage points or so.
In practical betting terms, a bet on Pierre Poilievre at current odds could have positive expected value. If we trust our 30% probability:
The expected value (EV) of a $1 bet on Poilievre at $0.25 (which would pay $1 if he wins, profit $0.75 net) is
0.30 * $0.75 + 0.70 * (-$0.25) = $0.225 - $0.175 = +$0.05. That’s a positive EV of 5 cents on the dollar, or a 20% expected return.In contrast, a $1 bet on Carney at $0.75 (win profit $0.25) has EV
0.70 * $0.25 + 0.30 * (-$0.75) = $0.175 - $0.225 = -$0.05. That’s a negative EV, suggesting Carney is an overpriced bet at the moment given our probabilities.
Of course, a small edge like 5% is within the noise of uncertainty – one could debate our probabilities should be 72-28 or 68-32, etc. But qualitatively, the market seems a tad too confident in a Liberal win, perhaps because of the dramatic poll turnaround, whereas there might be hidden advantages for Conservatives not fully priced in (like turnout or polling error potential).
Assessing Value of a Bet with Kelly Criterion: The Kelly criterion is a formula used to determine the optimal fraction of one’s bankroll to wager on a bet to maximize long-term growth, given a known edge and odds. Using Kelly can illustrate how confident one might be in exploiting this edge:
For Poilievre at 25% odds (3:1 payoff for a win) with our estimated 30% win probability, the Kelly fraction
f* = (p*(b+1) - 1)/b, wherebis the net odds multiple. Herep = 0.30, and if the market price is 0.25, the net payoff on winb = (1/0.25) - 1 = 3(you win 3 units net for 1 bet). Sof* = (0.30*(3+1) - 1)/3 = (0.30*4 - 1)/3 = (1.20 - 1)/3 = 0.20/3 ≈ 0.067. This suggests about 6.7% of bankroll as the optimal Kelly bet on Poilievre.In simpler terms, Kelly says put roughly 7% of your betting funds on Poilievre, reflecting the small edge. This is a fairly modest fraction, underlining that while +EV, it’s not a slam-dunk. Many bettors would bet half-Kelly or less to be conservative, which would mean maybe a 3-4% bankroll bet.
For Carney at 75% odds (1:3 payoff, net 0.333) with our 70% probability,
p = 0.70,b = (1/0.75) - 1 = 0.333. Thenf* = (0.70*(0.333+1) - 1)/0.333 = (0.70*1.333 - 1)/0.333 = (0.933 - 1)/0.333 = -0.067/0.333 = -0.20. A negative Kelly implies no bet; Carney’s odds offer negative edge by our estimates, so an optimal strategy would be to avoid betting on Carney at current price.
In plainer language: a bet on Poilievre has some value, but should be kept relatively small, commensurate with the moderate level of confidence. A bet on Carney is not justified given the juice already in his odds. Essentially, the market would need to underrate Carney’s chances (or his price drop) for a Carney bet to make sense – currently it doesn’t.
Risk/Reward and Confidence Interval Considerations: Placing any bet requires considering the risks. Here, the risk is that our analysis is wrong – maybe Carney actually has a 90% chance (he wins in a blowout), in which case betting Poilievre was a bad move; or maybe Poilievre is 50/50 and we underbet our conviction.
Given the inherently high uncertainty in elections (poll errors, sudden events), even a 30% chance outcome happens frequently enough (30% is not a longshot in a one-off event). One should have a wide confidence interval on these probabilities.
If one were extremely confident in Poilievre being undervalued (say believing it’s actually 45% but market is 25%), then the bet sizing would be larger. But our analysis doesn’t support that level of contrarian view – it’s a mild undervaluation.
Therefore, while there appears to be a small positive edge in betting on Poilievre, it is not a “sure thing” by any means. A Kelly bet of ~7% of bankroll reflects considerable uncertainty. If one is more risk-averse, even a smaller token bet might be prudent. If one doesn’t have high conviction and is just looking at risk/reward, a 3:1 payoff on a candidate who clearly has a viable path can be enticing – but also note that you are betting against the collective wisdom which has aggregated lots of information. So humility is warranted.
Betting on Carney at 1.33-to-1 odds (pay 3 to win 4 total) is not good value given he’s heavily favored already – the reward is small and you’d be very exposed if an upset occurs.
Betting on Poilievre at 3-to-1 odds offers potential value. If you assess, as we do, that his chances are somewhat higher than the market price, then over the long run such bets would yield profit. But the variance here is high (either he wins or loses – binary outcome), so only bet what you can afford to lose if you’re seeking a prudent approach.
Other Markets: If available, one might also consider markets like “Which party wins the most seats?” or “Conservatives win a majority?” etc. Polymarket likely has those too. Typically:
“Which party wins most seats” will be similar odds to Carney-as-PM, since if Liberals win most seats Carney almost surely is PM.
“Conservatives win majority” likely has a very low probability (given they’d need a huge swing – maybe <10% chance).
“Liberal majority” might be a higher but still not super high chance (maybe ~50/50 if polls are right on cusp). These could offer alternative bets. For example, if one is bullish on Carney but not sure about majority, betting Liberal-most-seats vs Liberal-majority are different risk/reward profiles.
Recommendation: Based on our forecast, an optimal betting strategy would be:
No bet (or a hedge) on Carney: Because the market is appropriately or even over-valuing him. If you already held Carney shares from earlier at lower prices, now might even be a time to take profit or hedge with some Poilievre.
Small value bet on Poilievre: Because he’s an underdog with a plausible shot and the payout is attractive. Using a fraction of your bankroll (per Kelly, roughly 5-10% at most) on Poilievre could be justified by the edge. For instance, if you have $1000 allotted for betting, a ~$50-$100 bet on Poilievre might be reasonable. This is not a bet to “go all in” on; it’s a calculated speculation that the crowd is slightly too pessimistic on him.
If one is extremely risk-averse, one might skip betting entirely, since the probabilities are not hugely mispriced – it’s not like we found a 80% likely event trading at 50%. The only side with value right now is the Conservative side.
Final Analysis: o3 Canada Election (2025)
After a tumultuous campaign, we conclude that Mark Carney and the Liberal Party are modest favorites to win the 2025 Canadian federal election, but Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives have a real fighting chance and cannot be counted out.
The Liberals benefit from their rebound in the polls, Carney’s perceived competence especially on international economic threats, and the structural advantages of incumbency and vote distribution in Canada’s parliamentary system.
The Conservatives benefit from a strong desire for change among the electorate, severe economic discontent that aligns with their messaging, and an energized base hungry to end the Liberal decade in power.
Our forecast, roughly 70% Carney vs 30% Poilievre, reflects a slight Liberal lean with a significant possibility of a Conservative upset. In seat terms, one might envision something like Liberals winning around 150-170 seats, Conservatives 140-160, NDP 5-15, Bloc 25-35, Greens 0-2 – but these ranges are broad.
A Liberal majority (>169 seats) is possible if everything breaks their way (higher end of their range), whereas a Conservative plurality is possible if things break the other way (lower end for Liberals, upper for Conservatives).
The outcome will ultimately hinge on:
Whether voters prioritize pocketbook pain or fear external threats at the ballot box.
Turnout efficiency – which side gets their people to show up in greater numbers, particularly in swing ridings.
Quebec’s choice between Bloc and Liberals, and Ontario’s margin between Liberals and Conservatives.
Last-minute shifts – any “October surprise” (well, April surprise) in the final days, though none major is evident yet.
So, who will win? If forced to pick, we lean Carney – but it’s a cautious lean. This is arguably the Conservatives’ race to lose turned into the Liberals’ race to lose once Carney took charge.
Betting: For those looking at the betting markets, the consensus has already priced in a Carney victory at around 75%. Our analysis suggests those odds are a bit rich; the value lies in the contrarian bet on Poilievre at roughly 3:1 odds. However, given the uncertainty, we’d advise such a bet only in moderation (small fraction of bankroll) as per the Kelly criterion. There is no “free money” here – just a slight potential edge if our read is right. If you do bet, be prepared for a nail-biter on election night.
This election has defied initial expectations and become a real contest. It combines high policy stakes (economy, national sovereignty, social cohesion) with dramatic political narratives.
For forecast enthusiasts and bettors alike, it’s a fascinating case where data and intuition must merge.
Come election day, we’ll see if Canadians choose the continuity of Mark Carney’s steady hand or the change promised by Pierre Poilievre’s crusade – and whether the betting markets and our analysis correctly anticipated the result.
References:
Abacus Data: Liberal lead down to 2 (Poll, April 2025)
The Guardian: Canada elections: who are the key players and what is at stake?
CoinDesk: New Canadian P.M. Carney Closes Gap on Polymarket with BTC‑Friendly Poilievre
Newsweek: Mark Carney’s Chances Against Pierre Poilievre As Campaign Nears Milestone
Ipsos: Affordability, Healthcare and Relationship with the US Top‑of‑mind Issues Among Canadians
Global News: Tories won the popular vote but the Liberals will govern. Here’s why.
CTV News: Trade war, cost of living top issues for voters: report
Polymarket: Next Prime Minister of Canada (2025) Prediction Market