Nuanced. - 220. David Coletto: Will There Be a Spring Election?

Episode Date: January 26, 2026

David breaks down whether Canada is headed for a spring election, where Mark Carney sits in the polls, how Pierre Poilievre is resonating with voters, and how younger Canadians’ housing frustration is deepening generational fault lines—alongside Chief Aaron Pete.Send us a textSupport the shownuancedmedia.ca

The last time we spoke was about a year ago now, and we were looking forward to a potential election. How do you reflect on the past year? Well, I think the first lesson is how fast things can change. The election of Donald Trump, we didn't know the extent to which some of his rhetoric would do to the mindset of the public. How is Mark Carney doing in the polls right now? I'd say fairly well still. He largely has a lot of trust with people. People feel confident that he at least knows what he's doing.

Pierre Pollyev, how do you look at him and where his poll numbers are? Paradoxical, he remains deeply popular among conservative-oriented Canadians. But that has led to pretty much everybody else looking at him through a negative lens. If you ask the ballot question, the liberals and the conservatives are still fairly close. Carney and the liberals are not running away with it, and it's an election where today it wouldn't be like a slam dunk. But the more I start to understand politics, you start to see that what? generation you're in does shape how you view things. You look at the issue sets. We asked a question on a survey last year whether people believed it should be illegal for somebody to own more than two

homes. And overall, about one in five Canadians said yes, but among Canadians under 30, that it rose to almost 40%. As you look outwards to rumblings of an upcoming potential election in the spring, what do you think the driving ethos of the election is? Is it hope? Is it hope? Is it fear. David, thank you so much for being willing to join us today. It's a pleasure to reconnect with you. Could you briefly introduce yourself for people who might not be acquainted with your work? Nice to see, Aaron. My name's David Cludeau. I'm the founder and CEO of Abacus Data, a polling firm based in Ottawa, Toronto, and Halifax. And to simplify what I do, I get to ask people questions for a living. And every week, my team and I are asking thousands of Canadians, hundreds of

questions and I've got a particular interest in politics, public policy, public affairs, but I'm fascinated by like how people react to the world and what that does to their attitudes and behavior. And there's no shortage of things for them to worry about these days. And it's a certainly really interesting time to be doing what I do. If you can believe it, the last time we spoke was about a year ago now and we were looking forward to a potential election. And we've since gone through that election. I don't think it went the way I had expected when we were talking in January of last year. We knew a lot of things were up in the air. How do you reflect on the past year and the changes that took place?

Well, I think the first lesson is how fast things can change and how important context matters, right? That the election of Donald Trump in November, we knew about when we talked Aaron, but we didn't know the extent to which, you know, what his plans were, what some of his ideas are, some of his rhetoric would do to the mindset. of the public, which we had really captured as this shift from one where the focus was overwhelmingly on, you know, cost of living, frustration with, particularly the Trudeau government, that created an environment where the overwhelming desire was for a change. And, you know, Trump really caused a lot of Canadians, not all of them, but a lot of Canadians to reset. And as Mr. Trudeau left the stage and Mr. Carney entered it, it created an environment where, change actually was keeping the government we had, but really seeing a wholesale shift in the way that

Mr. Carney approached politics and made this pitch to the public that forced, you know, not a landslide victory for the liberals, but one that was pretty remarkable given where they were at the beginning of 2025. One piece that seems like it's been ever present in our politics for the past few years has been inflation and the cost of living. How do you, Do issues in your mind line up when that is faced against something like the Trump tariffs and the Trump election? How do issues kind of compete from your perspective for everyday Canadians? Well, look, cost of living remains the number one issue even today. For almost two out of three Canadians, they put it in their top three issues.

It hasn't moved all that much. Donald Trump moves from week to week in terms of the salience. I mean, it's up this week because of what happened in Venezuela, his constant, you know, talking about Greenland and everything else that he seems to do. But specifically the immigration, I think the first is that Canadians overwhelmingly perceive that affordability is the number one thing in their lives. But it really depends on one, your sense of risk. What I like to say is your sense of, do I have a lot to lose or do I have nothing to lose?

And if you or somebody who has a lot to lose, cost of living is important, but you're also thinking about what might make it worse. And you're looking for leaders, particularly political leaders, who might protect you. And versus those who like, look, you know, it's so bad that it can't get worse. And therefore I want somebody who's going to kind of disrupt things. And so inflation is this overhanging issue that it's not even inflation anymore

because inflation is really under control. It's this perception that people feel they can't get ahead with an overwhelming sense of uncertainty that just makes people continue to be on edge. And so I think the cost of living remains this defining feature of not just our politics. We're seeing it play out in the United States. It's playing itself out in Europe. But it's not a one-size-fits-all kind of feeling. And I think the demand that voters and Canadians generally are, are, produces among them is different in terms of the reaction and the solutions that they're looking for. And that creates the kind of divide that we're seeing in, I think, the country right now.

The other piece that I'm curious about when you're able to ask Canadians questions, I imagine there's a limit on how complicated the questions can be. And so when we think about inflation, the other topic that I'm hearing more and more about is like the debasement of our currencies and how that's impacting people. how complicated or how much thought goes into the complexity of the questions you're able to ask when you're going and asking polling questions? Well, I mean, one thing we know is that, you know, a lot of people don't pay all that much attention to the details or the complexity, as you describe.

And so they often are guided by cues that they see. And so I wouldn't think that many people would even understand a question, you know, around currencies and how that's structured or how even the economy really works, but they have a sense of what's working and what's not based on their own lives. And so if they believe it costs more to feed themselves and their family, if they look around and see and again, feel, as much of the feeling as it is reality, that their wages are not keeping up with that cost of living, then that's in a way all that matters.

But the complexity of public policy, the complexity of economics doesn't play much into it. And so there's not much use in getting too complex the questions we ask because most people, if they answer them, they may not be coming from a place of true information. It may just be a hunch or a guess more than anything. How often are you surprised by the responses you receive when you're asking Canadians questions? It's a good question. Not often. I think we ask enough questions so frequently that, you know, I'm not often surprised because I'm someone who prides himself on paying close attention to a lot of different things. And so

you kind of anticipate the reaction that people might have to events around them. And so, you know, it's not so much that I'm surprised as I am more interested in the nuances that sometimes emerge, right? in the fact that sometimes we, I think, underestimate the effect of how someone gets their information is a huge causal factor in then what they believe. And we still sometimes simplify or distill public opinion into all Canadians think this or Canadians want this. But in reality, it's not that simple. I would say there's large groups of Canadians who want different things. And part of the reason is because their access to different types of information is dependent on where they kind of live both online as well as in the news and information ecosystem.

So it's not so much surprise as it is a constant reminder that we shouldn't assume that people are going to believe one thing or that one set of issues is going to take precedence. Because I think back to our first part of this conversation, the election last year, you're proved that, you know, the same person, just a few months separating themselves, could be looking for something entirely different based on that context that sets that choice in their mind. The other piece, your work is very important to understanding where Canadians are, but I think it's probably a currency to political organizations and political parties, to understand your work gives them some insights they can look at your work on your website and get an understanding.

How much does that play a role do you think in how politicians act and behave in what they prioritize? Because one piece, and this is no negativity towards you, but I worry that our politicians are more focused on finding the right answer in the polls rather than being genuine and authentic. How do we seek out that balance? Yeah, well, there's no doubt any politician will tell you, Aaron, if you interview them, that they don't follow the polls, but I know they do. And, you know, and it's not a, it's regardless of party or partisan stripe, they all are interested in it because it's, it's one way that they can gauge how the publics they're trying to serve and engage themselves are reacting to the issues of the day. So I do think polls play a big role. And I understand the influence that they can have on our political leaders thinking in the same way that when a elected official, you know, knocks on some doors and hears from constituents, that's just as a. influential or how many people are calling their offices or sending them emails, all of that kind of intel gives them a sense of what's important and what's not. But I also align with you as

somebody who measures public opinion in recognizing that leaders themselves have a huge role to play in shaping it. That for many people, they are at looking to their leaders for cues on what's important, on how to understand issues. And so I'm always telling whether it's political, leaders, whether it's, you know, corporate or nonprofit leaders that you have a power, you have influence in shaping that debate yourself and don't underestimate the power you have to bring people along. And so I think that it's a give and take. And I think the best leaders are ones who take a cue from the research that they do, but aren't simply guided only by it. That at some point Canadians are looking to your point to people who are authentic, who have clear

principles and are guided by some North Star that then might subtly be adjusted in how you communicate or how you frame something that research can help inform. But simply, you're not the kind politician just puts their finger up, you know, and says, well, the wind's blowing this way. I got to go this way today as opposed to the way I wanted to go over the way I think the country. And, you know, when I think of, at least from my observation, the way that, you know, Mark Carney, the prime minister is operating. To some extent, he's almost too much in that way, and that I don't think he sometimes explains enough his rationale or his vision to people because he's basically, you know, become, he came of age professionally in an environment as a central banker where

you're actually were meant to like ignore public opinion, resist it in many ways and make decisions despite what people want. And I think sometimes he needs to look to the other side and say you still got to bring people with you if they're going to buy into the vision that you have. And that's true of all political leaders, I think. How is Mark Carney doing in the polls right now? I'd say fairly well still. I mean, it's probably one of the most difficult environments for any government, any leader to operate. And given the level of uncertainty, the anxiety that exists in the public right now.

And I think when you look at all the indicators, whether it's how people feel about him personally, whether it's how people describe their approval with the federal government, he is still largely, not entirely, but largely has, you know, a lot of trust with people. People feel confident that he at least knows what he's doing. And so as the year starts, I think he's still in kind of the driver's seat, right? He is not in a position where anywhere near where Justin Trudeau found himself in at the end of his mandate where he had no public support. He had no political capital.

And no matter what he did or said, people weren't listening or reacting to it, I think Mark Carney, it's not universal. It's not, you know, unanimous, certainly. But it's a place that still means he can move issues forward and know that he's got the confidence, at least of the people who voted for him and some who didn't, in fact. And Pierre Pollyev has been much discussed over the past year because he was unsuccessful. And a lot of people saw him as the potential prime minister in waiting before. Justin Trudeau ended up stepping down. How do you look at him and where his poll numbers are? Well, Pollya finds himself, you know, a few weeks out from his leadership review in a paradoxical situation. On the one hand, he remains, at least for now, deeply popular among conservative-oriented Canadians.

People who voted for the conservatives who identify as conservative look at him and they say, well, that's the kind of leader. I think we need somebody who is aggressive, who's brash, who stands up for what he believes in, isn't willing just to be nice for nice sake. But that has led to pretty much everybody else looking at him through a negative lens, whether it's because they don't like him, they don't like his approach, they disagree with him on public policy. And so Poliev is at once very popular among his base and increasingly unpopular among everybody else, which means he's got a much lower ceiling, really, in terms of his support, a high base, but a low ceiling that is normal of a lot of conservative politicians, but I think in the case of Mr. Polyev, he has become a household name. He's well-known,

and it's very hard to change people's impressions of you once they've kind of set. And so he's got if he is successful in keeping the leadership, and I suspect he will be, if he wants to win an election in the future, he's going to have to find a way either to grow that audience or win simply by pulling out his current supporters. And so Pollyev has a lot of work to do, I think. But on the other hand, there's still a lot of strength in his brand that I think people often don't understand that he is tapping into a subset of the Canadian mindset that wants what he is offering. And that's why you do see continued support. If you ask the ballot question,

the liberals and the conservatives are still fairly close in that. Not on the question of who do you think makes the best prime minister, but certainly on vote, you know, Mark Carney and the liberals are not running away with it. And if an election were today, it wouldn't be like a slam dunk for them. Pierre Polyev has done a huge change over the past 10 years. If you look at him when he was starting out, his style, his look, his demeanor, his appearance, to where he is today, I think being aware of where the polls are in terms of his likeability, in terms of people understanding who he is and feeling like he is prime ministerial,

and I think he's trying to do work on that. What are the missing pieces from your perspective? What are some of the issues he's facing in order to try and overcome that or to try and demonstrate to Canadians? He is capable because one of the pieces I was reflecting on is just how politics was done and how people spoke 20, 30 years ago when they were prime minister. There was a certain demeanor. There was a certain my fellow Canadians. I'd like to address you in such a way that almost made everybody feel Kumbaya level energy.

And it feels like that's missing from our politics right now. And for good or for bad, people can have their opinions on that. It just feels like people aren't speaking the way that they used to when they held that office. Well, I think, look, I think context still is. important and Mr. Pauliyev is operating in an environment where his primary opponent, let's call it that, across the aisle is still deeply popular and everything in politics is relative. You're constantly compared to what you have versus what you could have. And when Mr. Poliyev was facing off against Justin Trudeau, it very much was easy because, you know, eight out of ten Canadians

thought the liberals did not deserve to be reelected. They overwhelmingly felt that Justin Trudeau's time had expired. And so Mr. Polly was an easy alternative for people. They, they liked them or they didn't, but he wasn't Justin Trudeau. And that was a real virtue. Now, in the context of Mark Carney being much more popular in the sense of having a lot of those attributes you describe, right? He is comforting to many people. He is reassuring at a time when the world just seems out of control. And it's not just Donald Trump, it's AI, it's economic insecurity, it's climate change. You name the issue. And, you know, no matter where you are in this country, you'll feel some level of anxiety about the future. He, Mark Carney is very good at that. So the fundamental question for Pierre Pollyav, and I wrote a piece about,

you know, how do you, how do you compete against that? Because on the one hand, you could say, well, you should just be like him and try to out be Mark Carney. But I think that's very hard because Mark Carney is very good at being Mark Carney. I know that sounds weird, but he's, He is the quintessential reassuring politician in the sense that not only does he have the experience prior to politics, being in banking and finance, having a global lens on a lot of issues, commanding a presence about, not in the way he speaks, because I don't think he's a very particularly charismatic political leader, but he's very technical, right? And very reassuring. I use that word a lot. The alternative is you need to be the opposite of Mark Carney. And in the current environment, I just don't think there's enough people who are looking

for that more disruptive, kind of a, and I call it aggressive, you know, just friction-inducing kind of approach, but there is still sizable number who do. And the question I think Mr. Polyev is probably answered is he doesn't think he can out Carney-Karni. And so he is just hopeful that when the public does eventually in the future make a decision about who they want to lead them in the next election, that more of those people will want something that he's offering than what Mark Carney is offering. And that, I think, is the fundamental problem. It's like, you know, I do a lot of marketing work. And you never want to be the Me Too product.

You want to be the dominant, you know, product or service or brand that meets, a customer's unmet need, and the same I think is true in politics. And so for, I wrote a piece in the Toronto Star that I, or sorry, in my substack that, you know, argued that, oh, no, it was in the hub. I should say that very clearly. I write different, different places where I basically said, like, perhaps, you know, Pierre Polyev's best chance is by trying to convince enough people that what we don't necessarily need is stability, we need urgency. And it's that framing. And it's that framing that might do him well. But I think he's struggling simply because right now anyways, Mark Carney is answering the question that I think a lot of Canadians are asking, which is who is going to be

the most reassuring and not statesmanlike, but that stability-inducing force in our politics, especially given our proximity to the United States and all of the disruption that Donald Trump creates pretty much on the daily basis. We're seeing growth from the NDP, and I think returning in the polls, where are they at and what are your reflections on their leadership race that they're going through? Yeah, we're seeing a small uptick in their numbers. I think until they select their leader, Canadians probably won't have much to say about the new Democrats. I think there's evidence, although it's not overwhelming in terms of the shift, that some of the decisions that the Carney government has made around, for example, pipelines, climate policy. has probably alienated some of those new Democrat voters that I do think, you know, voted.

I don't know if I agree with the term like they lended their vote to the liberals in the last election, but they at least voted liberal because that choice, again, answered the fundamental question they were asking at the time. But I think this leadership race, and I have no way of handicapping it, it's a small party now, it's hard to read, you know, who has the upper hand. very, if you look at the three main candidates, right, Heather McPherson, sitting member of parliament from Alberta, Avi Lewis, an environmental social activist who would take the party, I think, in two very different ways. And then you've got this really fascinating third candidate,

Rob Ashton, who comes entirely from the labor movement and is speaking really the politics of class in a way we haven't really seen in Canada, I think since really, Ed Broadbent, really. And each one probably means different things for the for the new Democrats. What I think they need is a way to become relevant, a way to get people's attention. And I don't, I'm not convinced, at least I haven't convinced myself, because I don't know these candidates super well, but which of those is the best choice for the party. But what's clear is as Mark Carney's moved his, his party and his government more to the center, center right on many issues, there is a space for a clear social democratic alternative in the country. And it's just what version of that new Democrats decide is going to be

the best choice for them in the party and the country. That was actually going to be one of my follow-ups. I see Mark Carney as a central banker who served under Stephen Harper's time, who understands fiscal restraint to a certain extent, and at least is aware of monetary policy. Whereas when you see the NDP's goals, they're less focused on those pieces and more on everyday individuals and has Mark Carney's leadership created space for the new Democrats to make a rise again? Yeah, I think they have, right? I think on a whole host of issues, whether it be environmental policy, whether it be social policy, whether it just be the language, right? Like, I think, I think Mark Carney is very much a corporatist kind of liberal. I think he's one who feels entirely

comfortable, probably more comfortable, frankly, speaking to a room full of CEOs than one of of labor leaders, right? And I think earlier this year, or sorry, last year now, the way the government handled the Air Canada flight attendance strike, the way they handled the Canada post strike signals some vulnerability on the issue of labor and on workers' rights. And in the way that Pierre Poliav has been very successful at connecting with working Canadians, like blue collar, those that work in the trades or in natural resource kind of sectors that had some of them had historically been much more closely linked to the new Democrats because of the tie with organized labor, I think could be open, right? And so if I'm the New Democrats, I'm asking

myself, you know, which of these candidates has the best chance of first differentiating ourselves from the liberals? And two, authentically speaking to Canadians. And I think when you look around the world, you look at what happened in New York City. You look at what's going on in the UK where the Green Party has basically emerged as this kind of populist left, you know, disruptive kind of force at the same time that you have a labor government in the UK is I think a response on the left to the same forces that are pushing the far right and the more populist right in both Canada and many countries. And so I do think there is a space.

Does it, is there enough for them to win an election? maybe not, but certainly to get back into a place where they're winning seats and they're competitive in far more parts of the country, I think that opportunity definitely exists for the new Democrats with the right leader and the right story and their ability to tell that story. Humbly, I'll admit, I haven't followed it closely, but I've heard increased discussions about Quebec and the Block Quebecois. Where are they at now? Has something changed between Quebecers and the relationship with the liberals? Well, I think we are seeing, you know, if you look at all the polls and the averages in Quebec, the liberal vote is dropping and the block number has gone up. And I think there's probably two factors in that. One is both, one is tied to provincial politics in Quebec and the kind of

collapse of Pablo Rodriguez, who was the former Quebec liberal leader. There was two ethics scandals surrounding him that forced him to resign. And that short-term kind of effect had a negative effect on the liberal brand writ large. And I think it affected the federal liberal brand as well. But at the same time, I think, you know, Mark Carney, to his credit, has been quite courageous for a liberal politician on energy issues, right? And the MOU with Alberta, his openness to a pipeline to the West Coast and British Columbia is in large part, not entirely offside with public opinion in Quebec, but more so. And you've got the prospect of a PQ government in Quebec. They're going to have a provincial election later this year. And so the dividing lines around, you know,

nationalist separatists versus federalists are starting to open up again, which would normally create an opportunity for the liberals because they are typically seen as the kind of counterweight to that separatist movement in Quebec. But because of all those other factors, I think, is complicating things. So again, Quebec isn't a given for the federal liberals because you have these really unique, I think, set of factors that are playing themselves out in the province of Quebec. What's one issue that gets a lot of saliency with media that maybe isn't being, or where they're focused on it, but Canadians are focused on something else? Is there an issue that Canadians are worried about that just does not get the limelight the way that other issues do?

It's a great question. I think, I mean, it hasn't come up recently. I think, you know, remember, I didn't even know if it was two years ago now, I guess, you know, Chinese election interference is one of those issues that official Ottawa and the parliamentary press galleries love to talk about, but Canadians just weren't that engaged on. It's those kind of issues that, you know, are often inside the Ottawa bubble are, are hard. for people to understand. But I think in this moment, I don't think there is one. And I think it's because we talked about costs of living and inflation, but the other counterpoint issue is Donald Trump. And it is impossible pretty much for most people to escape that news cycle and to escape the events

of any given moment. I mean, when we're recording this, as I watched the news this morning, he's talking about, you know, military action in Iran. And he's talking about, you know, Cuba and Columbia and just sort of spiraling all of this, this, again, further uncertainty, I think is really the defining feature. So I'm not sure there's, there's an issue that's kind of bubbling under the surface that hasn't been recognized. I think immigration was for a long time. But now it's, it's understood to be a really important issue to many Canadians because of, of the cost of living and accessibility to a lot of services and housing. So, yeah, Aaron, I really don't think so because of just how saturating the U.S.

government and Donald Trump is to so much that it's rightly the focus of both the media, I think in this case, in the public. One piece that growing up I didn't really care that much about was generations and the differences between them. I just sort of thought that that was unnecessary. but the more I start to understand politics and issues and what are facing people, you start to see that what generation you're in does shape how you view things. It does shape what you prioritize in the market.

How do you look at generations and where are the different fault lines from your perspective? I see housing being one of those key ones where young people are left out. Older generations, that's their retirement plan. And so there's a vested interest from older generations not to want to see. the housing market go in a different direction, which actually pushes out another generation. How do you look at the different generations? Well, I mean, your example is the perfect one, right?

Where if housing prices corrected themselves and dropped 20 or 30% tomorrow, Mark Carney wouldn't be prime minister for very long because so much of the new liberal coalition are baby boomers who own their homes and largely voted for them because they were worried that the disruptions going around around the world would risk that equity, would risk the value of their homes. And so I think

generation plays a huge part in our politics today. You know, when I look at the research we do with younger Canadians and I'm basically going to cut off 40 and under. There's variance, obviously, if you're 18 to 24, you have a very different, you're a different stage in life than if you're closer to my age. I'm mid 40s now. But fundamentally, I think you look at the issue sets. You look at the future. If you're young, younger in this country. And there is no doubt that you are at wits end about your ability to kind of have a better life than the generations that came before you. And in part, there is a growing feeling that older Canadians are in some ways a barrier, right, to the country or the

province or your community's ability to solve some of these issues. And housing is the perfect example, right? We asked a question on a survey last year, whether people believed it should be illegal in Canada for somebody to own more than two homes. And overall, about one in five Canadians said yes, but among Canadians under 30, that it rose to almost 40%. It's almost double the number of those of any other age group. And the answer, the reason why is because if you're young and you're trying to own a home, if you're struggling to just pay the rent, you look around, And somebody has a cottage or a cabin or they have investment properties, you fundamentally think that's unfair because the market and the structures of the system are just simply preventing you

from ever living out a dream, which you actually believe it should be part of the Canadian story. And so housing is a perfect example of it. And I think you look at, you know, the amount of the way in which some politicians, some political parties, try to go after baby boomer voters, who are the most reliable voters, they turn out. And so you're offering increases to OAS payments or the amount of spending that we do on seniors is substantially higher than it is among younger people. And so it creates that generational divide. But then you add in a further layer, which we mentioned earlier,

that my parents, who are in their 70s, will spend much of the day watching the mainstream news. They will watch CTV, they'll watch CVC, They will watch all the news coming out of Washington that's framing their thinking. And if you look at someone, say, age 20, odds are they're not watching any of that. In fact, they're getting their news from TikTok or Instagram or podcasts like yours. And so their understanding of the issue sets are very different, which is why even, you know, over the last year, anytime Donald Trump kind of emerges onto an issue set, it's younger Canadians who are less anxious about Donald Trump.

look at Donald Trump and they say, well, he's just one piece in a puzzle of chaos, whereas older Canadians are just constantly consuming information about what's coming out of Washington. And so it really does frame both their priorities and in their outlook on politics, which is why you've seen, you know, both in Canada and in other parts of the world, young men and women in a way becoming politically radicalized, whether it's men moving to the right and women moving to the left, they basically look at the systems and they say, like, this is not designed to serve my interests. And so they like to see disruptive kind of politicians. So you get a Mondami in New York City. You get in some ways, Pierre Paulyev in Canada, who I think effectively spoke, particularly to young men's desires for

disruption. And so, yeah, generation is a huge, is a huge factor in our politics today. And it is right around the world. The other piece along the same vein that I'd be curious to get your take on is we see different types of politicians as well. And I'm seeing, I interviewed Aaron Gunn, and I found what was interesting about him was that he spent time focused on understanding the issues first, I think always with a conservative lens, but developed an increased understanding of the issues, then went into politics with kind of an understanding of what, from his opinion, wasn't working and brought that in. We used to have kind of, you were, worked 35 years in your job and then maybe you put your name forward to run in politics because

you'd stewarded your community in a good way or something along those lines where you thought you had something to offer to the broader public. It's much shifting from my perspective to issue-based politicians that are really grappling with an issue and then bringing that to their constituents and bringing that to Ottawa more and more with opportunities to do interviews or or speak on them and develop that understanding. Are you seeing that from your perspective? Is there a shift in what type of politicians are coming about? Well, I think to some extent, you know, the counter to Aaron Guns of the world is the Mark Carney's,

which is exactly as you described, somebody who spent, you know, 40 years doing something else, although he was notionally around politics and held public sector jobs, he was never in elected office and never at least up until now thought that being an elected official was a path to doing the things he thought needed to be done. But I do think that, you know, issues certainly motivate people far more. And it may be the thing that gets them engaged. And what I think

you also see is a tendency for our elected officials to be in politics for much of their lives, right? So if you actually take a Pierre Pahliav, for example, versus a Mark Carney, they're the two complete opposites on many, many things, including how they got to the highest position in their respective parties. One, in the case of Pollyov, spent his entire career. both as a staffer and as an elected official and the other less so. And so I think, I don't know if there's a tendency overwhelmingly, but I do think that it's a great question that I think is deserving of like pretty good academic research to understand the origin of many of the elected officials who rise up, who have ambition to

sort of lead a jurisdiction or be the leader of a political party. Because I do think, you know, in the case like if Avi Lewis becomes leader, or the NDP, he is very much one driven by issues, even if he comes from a long line of elected officials, his father, his grandfather, and so on, he's certainly driven by issues more than he is by just wanting to, you know, be in politics and seeing elected office as a way to, because he's interested in it or he sees it as a kind of a kind of a, kind of a, as in a game. And I think politics sometimes is seen as more of a sport. And that attracts a different type of person and then somebody who's driven by issues, to your point about Mr. Gunn.

That actually leads perfectly into something you were discussing earlier, is polarization. I feel like I've been hearing concerns about polarization for a very long time. And that's not that it isn't happening, but how much is polarization from your perspective playing a role in our politics? I think it plays a role. I think it is a factor that we can't not, we can't not ignore, I guess, in Canada. We're nowhere as near as polarized as the United States. I think our media environment still isn't as rigid and structured around like your ideology or your partisanship. Then means you consume certain media.

But it's still a factor. And I think it's it's in part driven by certainly, again, that news and information ecosystem that feeds our interests and is constantly wanting to keep us engaged on the thing that engages us. So if, you know, you get into a rabbit hole on YouTube, it's because. because you've told the algorithm that you really like this content. And they're going to keep feeding more and more of it. And they're going to drive you into a deeper kind of engagement with that kinds of content. So that is one, I think, big factor. I also think, though, at a time when fundamentally people feel really anxious,

really unsure about the future, it drives us to zero some thinking, which in itself creates polarization, right? because zero-sum thinking is basically, you know, the view that if I am gaining, someone else is losing. And if you're losing, I must, I only gain from you losing. And that creates friction. It creates, it forces people to reinforce their identities, to find things that, that connects them with one cause and not another and opens up some big wide gaps. So it is an issue. It's an issue that's hard sometimes to operationalize.

it seems more conceptual than in reality. But you see it play itself out in our polling, for example, that no matter what Mark Carney does, there will be an audience that fundamentally dislikes it simply because he did it. And in the same way, there will be an audience that will be disagree with everything Pierre Pauliev says simply because Pierre Pauliev said it.

To me, that is like, that's partisanship, which is a version of polarization, but it's become much sharper in the sense that like we won't even engage, you know, any more in conversations. And we can live our whole lives, especially younger people who aren't, you know, exposed to a broader range of information. We could live our whole lives just surrounded by things we agree with and never hearing an alternative perspective. That actually raises one issue. I'd love to get some information from you on. And that's reconciliation. I'm a First Nations chief. and in British Columbia we had the Cowichin decision

and we also have this story around the unmarked graves that has really put a spotlight on reconciliation and if you are ever on X, which I know you visit, hopefully as infrequently as possible, you'll see that there's a lot of emotions in regards to how much First Nations receive and where we're at. My personal opinion is one of the biggest gaps we have is we never set any milestones or benchmarkers

to where we're going and how we're going to get there. And that's left a lot of people saying how long, how much are we going to spend? When does this all end? Like, we're in a cost of living crisis and we're giving out this money with very little financial control on how it's going to be spent. They hear stories about First Nations leadership being corrupt and they have a lot of concerns about that. And I don't, I try not to straw man their arguments. I try and understand and steal man where they're coming from. And I also, alongside that, believe that people are able to have complex. social discussions when the economy is doing well. And in 2015, we were in a position where we could

have conversations on reconciliation. We could have conversations about being environmentally responsible. But now we need to have conversations about fiscal conservatism. We need to have conversations about how we're going to get our economy on track, make sure people are being productive with what they're doing in their workplace, all of those places. So the focus is shifted. And I think we need to be alive to that when we're visiting conversations like reconciliation that perhaps this isn't going to be that pinnacle of focus for everybody. And if we try and make it that, we're actually going to do harm to the conversation. How do you grapple with some of those topics? Look, I think you're right on that. My presentations, I show Maslox hierarchy of needs, right, that triangle or that pyramid that, you know,

if you've seen or just search online and you'll find it. And it basically, you know, the theory is that before you can move to a higher order type of need, things at the very top is like, you know, self-fulfillment, right, and self-actualization. And at the very bottom, our basic physiological needs. And so when you ask Canadians, where are you, where is your focus right now on these five levels? Almost 70% say, look, I'm either focused entirely on my physiological needs, need. So making sure I've got food, housing, you know, clothing, a job, or my personal or economic security. That's the, that's the second run. So 70% of people are in those bottom two. Now, I don't have the benefit, unfortunately, of being able to go back to your point 10, 15 years ago and say,

well, what was it back then? But I, I suspect that it is hard to have those conversations that for many people who aren't directly affected by it. So, you know, if you're talking to, like a white male like me about reconciliation. Yeah, when I'm feeling confident, when I'm feeling that the world is at least headed in a kind of linear direction, I can kind of anticipate what's going to come down the pipe that I'm going to be much more open to a conversation about things that might take away something from me in order to correct historic injustice or to bring other people up. But when I'm feeling defensive, and now you're coming and you're saying to me, well, look, maybe your property isn't your property, or maybe we have to fundamentally change the way that

we do things, you're going to, natural inclinations to say, well, not now. Like, now is not the good time to do it. So I think, I think you're right. I think we, that's the zero-sum thinking I described earlier. It is this, this moment we're in that it is hard to get people out, to get outside of what they believe is their immediate focus to think about other things. And I think your connection or parallel back to 2015 is the perfect one. Because if you actually think back to when Justin Trudeau was elected in October of 2015, we were actually at a moment when much of the country was ready and willing to have that conversation. And you had a leader who wanted to take the country there and they followed them.

I think today that that wouldn't, you know, Justin Trudeau running on that, that platform would be overwhelmingly rejected because people would say, well, wait a second, we should be actually focused far more on securing the Arctic for our own sovereignty. We should be focused on making sure that our standard of living as a whole, but also my standard of living is being protected by by creating energy projects and moving fast because if we don't, I'm scared. we're going to lose so much. And so it's very hard to get people to empathize with others, especially when they're feeling that way, too. As you look outwards to, I think you're probably hearing rumblings of an upcoming potential election in the spring because Mark Carney didn't end up with his majority. I've heard it on CBC and I think a few other news organizations. What do you think the driving ethos of the election is?

Is it hope? Is it fear? I know we can't make predictions about exactly what's going to happen because, as we already saw, it's very hard to predict things, even a month out. But what do you expect to see as kind of the fundamental emotion people are feeling? Well, I do think there is a likelihood. I think it's a fairly good likelihood. We will have an election unless, you know, that majority is secured. And even then, one or two seat majority isn't really that secure. And if you're Mark Carney, and if he is at all, what people describe him as being impatient with having to, you know,

slow move things through the House of Commons and having his agenda kind of, you know, friction in committees and slowed down, then you may want the stability that comes with and the certainty that comes with a majority government. So I do think that, you know, at the end of 2025, I would have said the likelihood was like less than 20% of an election. After the first few weeks of 2026, I feel like it's higher because in the context of all of the uncertainty, not just what we thought was just us negotiating Kuzma with the White House, but now

with a White House that's clearly, you know, signaling an intent to control the hemisphere and to, you know, hell or high water get control of Greenland means that I think if Mark Carney can justify an election call, because the House of the House of the House of the Senate. Commons is not getting stuff done, is not productive, that there will be an audience for a call for stability. And so you asked, what is the election about? I think fear informs it, which then creates the demand for stability, which, you know, in 2011, when Stephen Harper faced an electorate, he asked for a strong, stable, majority conservative government in light of the financial crisis that had happened a year or two earlier, I think the same kind of environment.

just more even acute than that is likely to exist. And if the choice is between Mark Carney, the stabilizer, the reassuring force versus pure poly of the disruptor, I have a hunch that more people than even in the 2025 election will navigate towards the Carney option and probably give them his majority, which frankly is why I think we saw during the budget vote, the Conservatives absolutely did not want an election then, because I think they also understood that the environment. was not favorable to change when, in fact, what people want is less change. They don't want change. There's enough change going on.

And so that, I think, is what Mark Carney and the liberals want the election to be about. And I think is where the public largely is today. Whether that's where it ends, I don't know. But it certainly is, I think, where the mindset of much of the electorate would be in the spring. This is my most important question. After thinking about all of this for so long, how good does it feel to hop on your bike. I saw you do some traveling and enjoying that. How good did that feel? Oh, it always feels good. Like, I mean, anytime you can, you know, look, I love my job. I'm so stimulated by it. I always say that like as a human, I'm scared about the world, but as a social scientist, it's a fascinating time to do what I do. But yeah, you do need to find those moments where, you know,

you can hop on a bike, whatever you love to do. But biking for me is like, I get to see really cool places and meet people and just think about it and see nature and those are all very helpful when at any given day like everyone else in the country, you're just shocked by the uncertainty and the chaos that it feels just like, it's like a fire hose. And so yeah, yeah, anytime I can just turn it off and get out of here is that was good. Beautiful. Well, thank you so much, David, for being willing to do this. This was very enlightening and gives me a good understanding of the stories to follow as we head into the new year and try and figure out where we're heading. It's great to see you, Aaron. Thanks for having me. Thank you.