Top Conservative strategist says Poilievre needs to urgently pivot or he will lose
One of the country's top Conservative strategists who just helped Ontario Premier Doug Ford win a sizable majority government says Pierre Poilievre urgently needs to make a pivot and start talking more about the issue voters care about most — the U.S. threat — or he risks losing the federal election.
In an interview with CBC News, Kory Teneycke said only weeks ago Poilievre was on track to win a massive majority government, and now every major pollster in the country says it's the Liberals who are set to win big. If an election were held today, the Conservatives would lose, Teneycke said.
He said it's because of U.S. President Donald Trump — and the Conservative Party's inadequate messaging around what it would do to try and stop his tariffs and annexationist threats.
But it's not just that, Teneycke said, there's also a stylistic issue — the party's leader is just too "Trump-y" and he's got to make a change fast.
Teneycke said Poilievre acts and sounds too much like the president, with his pet names for his political opponents ("Carbon tax Carney") and catchy sloganeering ("big beautiful bring it home tax cut"), and it's off-putting to voters the party needs to win.
"It all sounds too Trump-y for a lot of voters," Teneycke said.
Teneycke, who held senior roles under former prime minister Stephen Harper including director of communications before becoming a strategist at firm Rubicon, said Poilievre is "negative all the time" and it's "hard to be liked by the public" when you're like that.
"There needs to be more of an emphasis on a positive message," he said.
"And I think you have to be a little more direct and more consistent in terms of the message around the U.S."
Asked about his sinking poll numbers Thursday, Poilievre said: "We'll wait for Canadians to make the choice on election day."
WATCH | Poilievre asked about declining poll numbers:
Poilievre says it's election day result that matters, not polling
3 hours ago
Duration 1:51
Responding to a question about how some public opinion polls show the Conservatives losing their lead over the Liberals, leader Pierre Poilievre said Canadians will make their decision on voting day.
"After the lost Liberal decade of rising costs and crime and the economy being down under America's thumb, do the Liberals deserve a fourth term in power? Or is it time to put Canada first for a change with a new Conservative government that will axe taxes, build homes, unleash resources and bring home the jobs?" Poilievre said.
Teneycke said Poilievre and his team are also running this campaign as if the main opponent was still former prime minister Justin Trudeau and that the issues that were in focus last year — the cost of living, inflation and the housing crisis — are the ones that matter most when voters are clearly indicating it's Trump who is top of mind.
"I'm not raising this critique out of animus for the Conservative Party," Teneycke said.
"I'm bringing it up as somebody who spent his entire career trying to elect Conservatives and many of them at the federal level. But I think we're just on the wrong track. And I think we need to adjust, refocus the campaign on the one big issue and soften the tone."
Internal Ontario Progressive Conservative polling obtained by CBC News paints a bleak picture for Team Poilievre in Canada's most populous province.
Carney's Liberals are at 48 per cent provincewide and the Conservatives at 33 per cent. The poll, which surveyed 1,902 respondents, was conducted March 24-26 and has a margin of error of +/- 2.2 per cent.
In remarks to the Empire Club in Toronto Wednesday evening, Teneycke said the campaign's current trajectory is concerning.
"I'll make the case tonight and hopefully this will permeate the Conservative Party war room somewhere — you've got to get on the f--king ballot question that is driving votes or you are going to lose," Teneycke said.
Asked about those remarks Thursday, Poilievre said he's the one who can best defend Canada.
"I'm the only one who will stand up to the U.S. president. The president wants the Liberals back in," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Alaska Sen. Murkowski toys with bid for governor, defends vote supporting Trump's tax breaks package
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, speaking with Alaska reporters Monday, toyed with the idea of running for governor and defended her recent high-profile decision to vote in support of President Donald Trump's tax breaks and spending cuts bill. Murkowski, speaking from Anchorage, said 'sure' when asked if she has considered or is considering a run for governor. She later said her response was 'a little bit flippant' because she gets asked that question so often. 'Would I love to come home? I have to tell you, of course I would love to come home,' she said. 'I am not making any decisions about anything, because my responsibility to Alaskans is my job in the Senate right now.' Several Republicans already have announced plans to run in next year's governor's race, including Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom. Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy is not eligible to seek a third consecutive term. Alaska has an open primary system and ranked choice voting in general elections. Murkowski is not up for reelection until 2028. A centrist, Murkowski has become a closely watched figure in a sharply divided Congress. She has at times been at odds with her party in her criticism of Trump and blasted by some GOP voters as a 'Republican in name only.' But her decision to support Trump's signature bill last month also frustrated others in a state where independents comprise the largest number of registered voters. She previously described her decision-making process around the bill as 'agonizing.' On Monday, she said it was clear to her the bill was not only a priority of Trump's but also that it was going to pass, so it became important to her to help make it as advantageous to the state as she could. 'So I did everything within my power — as one lawmaker from Alaska — to try to make sure that the most vulnerable in our state would not be negatively impacted,' she said. 'And I had a hard choice to make, and I think I made the right choice for Alaskans.'
Japan Forward
an hour ago
- Japan Forward
Two Atomic Bombs by America Ended the Asia-Pacific War ー Was There a Third Option?
Every August 6, on the anniversary of the atomic bomb attack against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an argument is remade. It reasons that Harry Truman, president of the United States of America, had two choices to end the Asia-Pacific War. He could force a surrender through the use of nuclear weapons or proceed with an invasion of the Japanese home islands. According to the contention, the option of the atomic bomb attack was the better of the two. It was touted as quicker, with an ultimately lower death toll. This assertion is nonsense, and always has been. There were never two options ー there were three. The third was to do what 99.9% of generals, commanders and statesmen have done throughout the history of warfare: Drop the insistence of unconditional surrender and negotiate. In this year of 2025, the two-option argument is even more nonsensical than usual. There are ongoing wars for which the option of negotiation will inevitably prevail. They include the Israel-Iran War and the war between Russia and Ukraine. Satellite image showing the entrance to a tunnel destroyed in a US airstrike, at a nuclear facility in Isfahan, central Iran, on June 22. (provided by Maxar Technologies, Reuters via Kyodo) Inappropriate Comparisons Curiously, when it comes to Israel-Iran, US President Donald Trump has been doing his best to draw parallels with the Asia-Pacific War and its dual option narrative. On June 17 he announced that he sought the "unconditional surrender" of Iran. In the wake of the US bombing of the Iranian Fordo nuclear facility, he evoked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both the 1945 atomic bombs and his strike on Iran "ended the war," he proclaimed. It is possible that President Trump is trying to pull the rug out from underneath Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu by insisting that the problem of the Iranian nuclear program has been resolved and further military action is not required. A more likely scenario, however, is that he is attempting to magnify the scope of his achievement. In any event, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki parallel is ridiculous. Iran has not been militarily defeated (let alone forced to surrender unconditionally). Moreover, the failure of the US strike against the Iranian nuclear program makes negotiations even more certain. Inevitability of Negotiations Between Russia and Ukraine When it comes to the Russia-Ukraine War, differences between it and the Asia-Pacific War are undeniably stark. There will be no unconditional surrender from either of the combatants. That war has reached a stalemate and will end with a ceasefire, followed by a negotiated agreement. President Trump has famously attempted to effectuate such a deal. Some reports say he suggests allowing the Russians to keep most of what they occupy. Meanwhile, Ukraine gains a measure of security assuredness through the increased presence of American business interests. In particular, that would come within the mining sector. President Trump has portrayed Russian President Vladimir Putin as both reasonable and conciliatory. The initial aim of Putin was to wipe Ukraine off the map but he presently seems content to settle for the eastern regions that he presently holds. It is quite a compromise on the part of Putin, Trump has suggested. Trump has also focused on the loss of life extracted by the war, implying that loss of territory is preferable to continued Ukrainian casualties. The Japan of 1945 was asking for considerably less than President Trump is prepared to concede to the Russians. And far more lives were in the balance. On the eve of the Hiroshima attack, the Japanese were merely seeking to preserve the integrity of the imperial system via assurances that the Emperor would not be put on trial. The Allies were also fully aware of this reality as they had broken the Japanese codes. Yet, the demand for unconditional surrender was maintained. Atomic bombing of Hiroshima (©US Army via Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, HO) The Belligerent Mindset of Unconditional Surrender Unconditional surrender is a rarely exercised option, not a default setting. Having demanded unconditional surrender, a belligerent power does not acquire justification in resorting to war crimes when the price of total victory becomes too steep. Moreover, perceived or real, the war crimes of one's adversary do not legitimize one's own. Many nonetheless claim that the Japanese militarist regime was so abhorrent that the ends justify the means. Even when those means constitute an unconditional surrender obtained via nuclear attack. This is an argument that could perhaps be made by an Asian whose country had been subjected to colonization. When forwarded by a member of the West, as it generally is, a measure of ignorance or hypocrisy is more than often present. There are two ways of interpreting the Asia-Pacific War. The first is as a war between Asia in tandem with the West, against the Japanese aggressor. The second is as an imperial war for control over imperial possessions, conducted by combatants universally devoid of clean hands. Unsurprisingly, the West prefers the first of these scenarios. The second scenario is accurate. In earlier articles for JAPAN Forward, I have suggested that those prepared to justify the nuclear attacks on the basis of their success in comprehensively destroying the culture of Japanese imperialism should also recognize the impact of Japan in bringing down the ethos that buttressed the Western imperial presence in Asia. The Western empires, the British Empire in particular, were sustained by the myth of white supremacy. The ritualized humiliation that the Japanese wrought upon the white imperialists captured in Asia destroyed this myth, and brought forward the timetable for Asian self-determination by a generation at least. A Clean Break with the Past A case could further be made that it was precipitous for Japan to lose its empire at a stroke. Under that perception, it was bad both for the colonized people of Asia and for Japan itself. Asia was not freed by the fall of Japan. Subhas Chandra Bosesits in the distinguished visitor's box of the Japanese parliament listening to Japanese Prime Minister Tojo declare support for Indian Independence, 16th June 1943. (©Netaji Museum and Centre for Studies in Himalayan Languages Society & Culture, Giddha Pahar, Darjeeling district, West Bengal) Following surrender, the Western colonial powers attempted reassert control, often with the assistance of Japanese troops kept at arms. These efforts, however, were ultimately for nought. The carefully crafted myth of white superiority that had allowed so few to control so many was a casualty of the war. Colonial presence within high density Asia could not be reclaimed. The slow and painful colony disbursement that the Western powers endured over the next 30 years was an ordeal that the Japanese might be glad to have avoided. Complimentary Aims Arguments against the demand for unconditional surrender are just as strong. The most compelling can be found in the manner in which the US and Japan coordinated their aims after the Japanese surrender. One of the principal concerns of the Japanese throughout the 1920s and 30s was the direction in which China would ultimately go. Nineteenth-century exploitation by the imperial West had left the Chinese government impotent, leading to its fall in 1912. From 1912 until 1949, China was fractured. Two regimes emerged as potential unifying forces: the right wing Kuomintang (KMT) of Chiang Kai-shek, and the Communist Party under Mao Zedong. A scene from a painting of Chiang Kai-Shek in the Kinmen museum (©Robert D Eldridge) The Japanese were no less adamant than the United States of America that the Communists should not prevail. As with America, they sought to be the voice that a governing rightwing Chinese administration could not ignore. In short, America and Japan had the same fundamental aim when it came to China. They both sought to be the dominant influence over a ruling rightwing regime. Unsurprisingly, after Japan's surrender, the Japanese forces based within China eagerly cooperated with America by acting in the interests of the KMT. In occupied Japan itself, after a brief period, the US concluded that its fundamental aims and those of Japan within Asia were largely complementary. Many lives would have been saved if this reality had been acted upon prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Showa Emperor and General Douglas MacArthur. Japan's postwar constitution was drafted on General MacArthur's orders. Three Options, Not Two Arguments for and against the morality and merit of the atomic attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki exist in abundance and will continue to be advanced for generations to come. However, the US had more than a duality of options. It could have ended the war through negotiation - the manner in which the vast majority of wars are concluded. This is the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima attack. With negotiations inevitable in the Russia-Ukraine War, one hopes that the nonsense of the two-option argument has finally become clear. Moving forward, that debate should be directed towards the legitimate arguments that exist — both for and against those attacks. RELATED: Author: Paul de Vries Find other reviews and articles by the author on Asia Pacific history on JAPAN Forward.
Toronto Sun
2 hours ago
- Toronto Sun
Bondi moves forward on Justice Department investigation into origins of Trump-Russia probe
Published Aug 04, 2025 • 4 minute read Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks at a news conference at the Drug Enforcement Administration, Tuesday, July 15, 2025, in Arlington, Va. Photo by Julia Demaree Nikhinson / AP WASHINGTON — Attorney General Pam Bondi has directed that the Justice Department move forward with a probe into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation following the recent release of documents aimed at undermining the legitimacy of the inquiry that established that Moscow interfered on the Republican's behalf in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Bondi has directed a prosecutor to present evidence to a grand jury after referrals from the Trump administration's top intelligence official, a person familiar with the matter said Monday. That person was not authorized to discuss it by name and spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press. Fox News first reported the development. It was not clear which former officials might be the target of any grand jury activity, where the grand jury that might ultimately hear evidence will be located or which prosecutors _ whether career employees or political appointees — might be involved in pursuing the investigation. It was also not clear what precise claims of misconduct Trump administration officials believe could form the basis of criminal charges, which a grand jury would have to sign off on for an indictment to be issued. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The development is likely to heighten concerns that the Justice Department is being used to achieve political ends given longstanding grievances over the Russia investigation voiced by President Donald Trump, who has called for the jailing of perceived political adversaries, and because any criminal investigation would revisit one of the most dissected chapters of modern American political history. It is also surfacing at a time when the Trump administration is being buffeted by criticism over its handling of documents from the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation. The initial, years-old investigation into Russian election interference resulted in the appointment of a special counsel, Robert Mueller, who secured multiple convictions against Trump aides and allies but did not establish proof of a criminal conspiracy between Moscow and the Trump campaign. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The inquiry shadowed much of Trump's first term in office and he has long focused his ire on senior officials from the intelligence and law enforcement community, including former FBI Director James Comey, whom he fired in May 2017, and former CIA Director John Brennan. The Justice Department appeared to confirm an investigation into both men in an unusual statement last month but offered no details. Multiple special counsels, congressional committees and the Justice Department's own inspector general have studied and documented a multi-pronged effort by Russia to interfere in the 2016 presidential election on Trump's behalf, including through a hack-and-leak dump of Democratic emails and a covert social media operation aimed at sowing discord and swaying public opinion. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. But that conclusion has been aggressively challenged in recent weeks as Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and other allies have released previously classified records that they hope will cast doubt on the extent of Russian interference and establish an Obama administration effort to falsely link Trump to Russia. In one batch of documents released last month, Gabbard disclosed emails showing that senior Obama administration officials were aware in 2016 that Russians had not hacked state election systems to manipulate the votes in Trump's favor. But President Barack Obama's administration never alleged that votes were tampered with and had instead detailed other forms of election interference and foreign influence. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. A new outcry surfaced last week when Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released a set of emails that FBI Director Kash Patel claimed on social media proved that the 'Clinton campaign plotted to frame President Trump and fabricate the Russia collusion hoax.' The emails were part of a classified annex of a report issued in 2023 by John Durham, the special counsel who was appointed during the first Trump administration to hunt for any government misconduct during the Russia investigation. Durham did identify significant flaws in the investigation but uncovered no bombshells to disprove the existence of Russian election interference. His sprawling probe produced three criminal cases; two resulted in acquittals by a jury and the third was a guilty plea from a little-known FBI lawyer to a charge of making a false statement. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Republicans seized on a July 27, 2016, email in Durham's newly declassified annex that claimed that Hillary Clinton, then the Democratic candidate for president, had approved a plan during the heat of the campaign to link Trump with Russia. But the purported author of the email, a senior official at a philanthropic organization founded by billionaire investor George Soros, told Durham's team he had never sent the email and the alleged recipient said she never called receiving it. Durham's own report took pain to note that investigators had not corroborated the communications as authentic and said the best assessment was that the message was 'a composites of several emails' the Russians had obtained from hacking — raising the likelihood that it was a product of Russian disinformation. The FBI's Russia investigation was opened on July 31, 2016, following a tip that a Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, had told an Australian diplomat that he had learned that Russia was in possession of dirt on Clinton. RECOMMENDED VIDEO Opinion Columnists Weird Wrestling Toronto Raptors
