On 28 April the Liberal Party of Canada pulled off a stunning comeback, toppling the Conservatives in one of the biggest upsets in the country’s electoral history—just two months after trailing them by 20 points. Led by Pierre Poilievre, the Conservatives had maintained a commanding lead in the polls for over a year, consistently ahead by margins of 20 points or more. However, the final stretch of the campaign saw a sharp reversal. US President Donald Trump’s imposition of tariffs and aggressive rhetoric regarding annexation radically altered the political landscape—one to which the Conservatives failed to respond effectively. Despite achieving one of the party’s strongest electoral performances in the past 15 years, the Conservatives were ultimately defeated. The fall of Poilievre’s party has left conservatives around the world stunned. To understand what happened in Canada—and whether it reflects a broader global pattern—Hungarian Conservative spoke with Samuel Duncan, a senior Canadian conservative adviser with extensive experience in both politics and the private sector, to analyse the results and their implications.

***

Who bears the greatest responsibility for the Conservative setback—Pierre Poilievre, the campaign strategy, or even Donald Trump?

The Conservative Party of Canada experienced a dramatic and unprecedented shift in the polls—from being 25 points ahead in January 2025 to losing the April 28th election to the incumbent Liberal Party under new leader Mark Carney. Following the sudden resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the Liberals capitalized on a perfect storm of timing, Donald Trump’s tariff and annexation threats, shrewd political strategy, and the appeal of an untested yet globally respected figure to secure victory.

Pierre Poilievre won 41.3 per cent of the popular vote—the highest percentage for a conservative party in Canada since 1988 and nearly two points higher than the last Conservative majority in 2011. There were two key issues in the campaign: Donald Trump and the cost of living. The latter remained the top political concern across the country for those under the age of 60. However, for those over the age of 60 President Trump is the top political concern. This resulted in a small political realignment where a plurality of people under 35 supported the conservatives and a plurality over 60 supported the Liberals. This is a very interesting trend that should provide some optimism that if the conservatives can win back older voters, they have a clear path to a majority. Despite the strong popular support, the Conservatives lost due to two major voting blocs siding with Carney’s Liberals.

The first group was baby boomers, for whom Donald Trump represents an existential threat and who have remained largely untouched by the past decade of Liberal policy failures. As the wealthiest generation in Canadian history, they have benefited from rising home values, a strong stock market, and robust public pensions and social services. Though they had grown weary of Trudeau, concerns over potential US annexation and Trump-era tariffs drove them to seek stability over the change message offered by the Conservatives. Mark Carney appeared more ‘prime ministerial’ than Poilievre to this demographic—a decision driven more by emotion than reason. Interestingly, the Conservatives had begun to sway some of these voters by the campaign’s final stretch. With an extra week or two, the outcome might have been different.

The second group was voters from the New Democratic Party (NDP), Canada’s socialist party, which typically garners 15–30 per cent of the popular vote. Trudeau had previously won elections by attracting support from NDP voters—particularly those in the professional managerial class and public-sector unions. In an increasingly polarized political landscape, many of these voters saw Poilievre as a Trump-like figure—aided by Liberal messaging—and strategically voted Liberal to prevent a Conservative government. However, not all NDP supporters followed suit—some working-class private-sector union voters shifted to the Conservatives. This allowed Poilievre’s party to make gains in historically NDP strongholds, much like Trump’s success in US industrial states such as Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

While this result is a significant setback for the Conservatives, there are reasons for optimism. They achieved a strong showing in the popular vote, expanded support among working-class voters, and made inroads in suburban areas. As with any unsuccessful campaign, responsibility must be shared across the board. Overall, Pierre Poilievre performed well—despite losing his own seat—but could have adjusted to the shifting political reality sooner and stronger. Despite the significant advantages enjoyed by Mark Carney, this election was still winnable.

How was Mark Carney able to galvanize such broad support in just over two months, despite being a political newcomer?

Prime Minister Carney benefited largely from not being Justin Trudeau. Trudeau had become so unpopular that virtually anyone else would have been in a stronger position by comparison. Meanwhile, President Trump’s aggressive, chaotic, and confrontational approach to reshaping the global economic order has inadvertently revived support for elites, institutions, and incumbents—undermining populist conservatism around the world.

Canada may be the clearest example of this shift. In a matter of weeks, the electorate pivoted from anti-incumbent populism to a preference for safety, stability, and technocratic leadership. Voters appeared willing to relegate Canada’s deeper structural issues to the background in favour of steady, experienced governance.

Mark Carney, a self-described ‘globalist’, emerged as the antithesis of Trump—and crucially, not Trudeau. His reputation as a serious, capable leader who could ‘stand up for Canada’ played well in this environment. That image, combined with Trudeau’s unpopularity, helped make Carney popular.

Whether this popularity is lasting, or if the timing of the election simply caught a fleeting political moment, remains to be seen.

Would you say that a significant share of votes for the Liberals was driven more by anti-Trump or anti-US sentiments than genuine support for Liberal policies?

It was both. Central Canada—what we often refer to as the Laurentian Elite—is both traditionally pro-Liberal and anti-American. This group, concentrated in the Toronto–Ottawa–Montreal corridor, has long been seen as Canada’s governing class. While they had grown weary of Justin Trudeau and his highly progressive, ‘woke’ agenda, they had not abandoned the Liberal Party itself.

When Mark Carney entered the scene and signalled, at least temporarily, a shift in some key Liberal policies, these voters returned to the fold. Conservatives accused Carney of ‘stealing’ their platform—an accusation that isn’t entirely baseless. On issues like affordability, housing, economic development, and taxation, Carney did, at the very least, adopt conservative rhetoric. It is an open question though whether he adjusts long-standing Liberal policies.

There’s also a strong anti-Trump and anti-American sentiment driving these voters. Canadians were emotionally and psychologically shaken by Trump’s threats to our economy and sovereignty. Even though the Conservatives are not explicitly ‘MAGA’, the Liberals remain the most overtly anti-American and anti-Trump party. For many in Central Canada, this made them the logical choice. This was especially impactful among baby boomers and older voters.

Is there a discernible anti-American sentiment in Canadian society that was reflected in the election outcome?

Yes, there was—and it stems from the lack of a unified Canadian national identity. In its place, many Canadians have rallied around a sentiment of anti-Americanism. The Liberal Party, being the most overtly anti-American, has successfully tapped into this emotional undercurrent to its political advantage.

Over the past 60 years Canadian progressives have pursued a deliberate multiculturalist agenda aimed at downplaying or reshaping Canada’s traditional cultural and national identity. Justin Trudeau even bragged that Canada is ‘a post-national state’. In many ways, progressives have won the cultural battle, and Canada today may be one of the most deeply ‘woke’ societies in the world.

To the extent that a Canadian national identity exists, it is largely defined in contrast to the United States—specifically, that we are not American. So, when Canadian sovereignty is openly and consistently threatened by President Trump, the resulting nationalism manifests as anti-Americanism. This dynamic has hurt the Conservative Party, whose policy agenda and political disposition are perceived by many voters as closely aligned with Trump and the Republican Party, despite notable differences in tone and substance.

How did the Liberals manage to turn that into a winning campaign strategy?

Canada lacks a positive nationalist sentiment—a result of decades of multiculturalist policy, the pervasive influence of American culture, a sustained progressive effort to reject Canadian history, and the impact of identity politics labelling the nation’s founding figures as racist. As a result, whatever nationalist sentiment remains in Canada is largely claimed by the progressive left, expressed primarily through anti-Americanism.

This manifests in various cultural and political actions: Canadian political leaders have removed American alcohol from store shelves; hockey fans have booed the US national anthem; provincial governments have revised procurement rules to exclude American firms from public contracts; and American corporations operating in Canada often go out of their way to brand themselves as ‘Canadian’ to avoid consumer backlash. These are all negative expressions of Canadian nationalism—defined by what Canada is not, rather than by what it is.

Arguably, this represents one of the greatest failures of modern Canadian conservatism. Despite genuine efforts by the last federal Conservative government to promote Canadian history, heritage, and the military, the institutional levers of cultural influence remain firmly in the hands of liberal elites. They have successfully shaped a progressive, left-leaning form of anti-nationalism to occupy the national identity space that exists in every country.

Pierre Poilievre’s platform and speeches included calls to restore Canadian cultural identity, but these themes failed to resonate deeply with the broader public. This highlights the need for a more extensive and sustained cultural effort across institutions and leadership if traditional forms of nationalism are ever to be meaningfully revived in Canada.

A similar situation seems to be developing in Australia ahead of Saturday’s election. What lessons could conservatives there draw from Poilievre’s defeat?

Australian conservatives need to understand that we are living through a potential restructuring of the global order that is having impacts on international politics and domestic politics as politicians and voters react to President Trump’s second term. 

Before Trump’s election the world was witnessing a continued rise in populist parties on both the left and right, generating an anti-incumbent bias in elections as voters punished governing parties. Canada was not immune to this trend, and it was one of the drivers of Pierre Poilievre’s popularity and rise in the polls. The aggressive, chaotic, confrontational and threatening way that Trump has gone about imposing his agenda has driven a resurgence in support for elites, institutions, and incumbents, which is undermining populist conservatism globally. 

Australian conservatives need to understand that this may impact some of their coalition that they used to take for granted, like some baby boomer seniors, and adjust their message to those in your coalition who may be looking for stability, safety, and not change. But they also must continue to appeal to the working class voters that are now the base of the conservative populist realignment and not move to the centre from elite and media pressure. 

What lies ahead for Poilievre and the Conservative Party? What strategic adjustments will be necessary moving forward?

The Conservatives are in their strongest position in over a decade, having limited the Mark Carney-led Liberals to a minority government and achieving their highest share of the popular vote since 1988. Pierre Poilievre is expected to secure a seat in the House of Commons through a by-election, as a re-elected Conservative MP is anticipated to step down to make way for him. While the party has cycled through new leaders following each of the last three election losses, it remains firmly behind Poilievre. Despite missing what once seemed like a guaranteed victory just months ago, there is no serious movement to replace him.

Looking ahead, the Conservatives must focus on two priorities. First, they need to solidify their gains among working-class and younger voters. Second, they must find a way to re-engage seniors and baby boomers—an essential voting bloc for securing a majority. Policy was not the issue in the last campaign; rather, it was the emotional and ‘vibe-driven’ nature of the election that the Conservatives did not adjust fast enough to. 

The Conservatives should resist the urge to drift back to the political centre or to emulate the Liberals, even with the NDP now effectively absorbed into a left-wing coalition. While some, like Ontario Premier Doug Ford (Ford is a Progressive Conservative), have adopted a centrist approach, this would be a strategic mistake at the federal level. That said, the party must recognize that certain adjustments are necessary to broaden its appeal—particularly among key ethnic communities—if it hopes to win in a political landscape where no viable third party exists to divide the progressive vote.

How will this election result impact US–Canada relations, particularly under a Carney-led government?

Regardless of who won, I expected US–Canada relations to improve in the short to medium term, largely because I believe much of President Trump’s fixation on Canada stemmed from a personal dislike of Justin Trudeau and a desire to influence Canadian politics. Once our election was over, he would lose interest in his desire to influence our politics. I expect Mark Carney to foster a constructive and positive relationship with President Trump—if he can set aside the partisan instincts that Trudeau could not and choose to engage with the President rather than use him as a domestic political foil. Mark Carney must develop a coherent strategy that protects national interests while engaging with the new reality of American interests; this also needs to be done in a way that reflects Canadian unity—not just the interests of the Laurentian Elites that elected him.

That said, I believe US–Canada relations have been fundamentally disrupted. Canadians no longer implicitly trust Americans, and that shift is prompting Canada to rethink its economic and social engagement with the United States. It would be foolish for Canada to act emotionally despite the American threats. 

Canada needs the United States—and despite what President Trump may believe, America needs Canada too. I am hopeful that Prime Minister Mark Carney will succeed in repairing the special relationship that has, in recent years, been strained between our two nations.

Read more of our interviews: