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

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.

Transcript

Aaron Pete: 0:02

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?

David Coletto: 0:12

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 were due to the mindset of the public.

Aaron Pete: 0:22

How is Mark Kearney doing in the polls right now?

David Coletto: 0:25

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.

Aaron Pete: 0:32

Pierre Poliev, how do you look at him and where his poll members are?

David Coletto: 0:36

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 today. It wouldn't be like a slam dunk.

Aaron Pete: 0:55

But the more I start to understand politics, you start to see that what generation you're in does shape how you view things.

David Coletto: 1:02

You look at the issue status. 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 a one in five Canadians said yes. But among Canadians under 30, that it rose to almost 40%.

Aaron Pete: 1:19

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 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?

David Coletto: 1:48

Nice to see you, Aaron. My name is David Clutto. 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, uh 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 certainly a really interesting time to be doing what I do.

Aaron Pete: 2:23

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?

David Coletto: 2:46

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, what some of his rhetoric would do to the mindset of the public, which we had really captured as the shift from one where the focus was overwhelmingly on, you know, cost of living, frustration with particularly the Trudeau government, uh, 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. Kearney entered it, it created an environment where change actually was keeping the government we had, but uh really seeing a wholesale shift in the way that Mr. Kearney approached politics and made this pitch to the public that 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.

Aaron Pete: 3:55

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 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?

David Coletto: 4:17

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 I but specifically the immigration, I think the first is that the Canadians overwhelmingly perceive that you know affordability is the number one thing in their lives. But it really depends on one, your your sense of risk. What I like to say is, you know, your sense of do I have a lot to lose or do I have nothing to lose? And if you are 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 who might protect you and and versus those who like, look, you know, it's it's so bad that it can't get worse, and therefore I want somebody who's going to kind of disrupt things. And and so inflation is this overhanging issue that 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 produces among them is different in terms of the 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.

Aaron Pete: 6:06

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?

David Coletto: 6:34

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 they often are guided by cues that they see. And so I wouldn't think that many people uh would even understand a question, you know, around currencies and and and how that's structured or how even the economy really works, but they 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 their themselves and their family, if they look around and see, uh, and again, feel as much as a 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 it there's not much use in in getting too complex with the questions we ask, because most people, if they answer them, they may not be coming from a a place of you know true information. It may just be a hunch or a guess more than anything.

Aaron Pete: 7:42

Are you how often are you surprised by the responses you receive when you're asking Canadians questions?

David Coletto: 7:48

It's a good question. Not often. I think we ask enough questions so frequently that you know we're 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 that people might have to to events around them. And so, you know, it's it's not so much that I'm surprised as a as as I am more interested in the nuances that sometimes emerge, right? And 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 or or distill public opinion into all Canadians think this or Canadians want this. But in reality, it 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 that people are going to believe one thing or that one set of issues is gonna take precedence. Because I think back to our first part of this conversation, the election uh last year 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.

Aaron Pete: 9:29

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 and 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 how do we seek out that balance?

David Coletto: 10:07

Yeah, well, there's no doubt, and 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 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 I I understand the influence that they can have on our political leaders thinking. In the same way that when an elected official knocks on some doors and hears from constituents, that's just as 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 I'm always telling, whether it's political leaders, whether it's you know corporate or 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 it's a give and take. And I 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 of politician who just puts their finger up, you know, and says, Well, the wind's blowing this way, I gotta go this way today, as opposed to to the way I wanted to go or the way I think the country. And I, 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, in that I don't think he sometimes explains enough his rationale or his his 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 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 if they're gonna buy into the vision that you have. And that's true of all political leaders, I think.

Aaron Pete: 12:43

Aaron Powell How is Mark Kearney doing in the polls right now?

David Coletto: 12:48

I'd say fairly well still. I mean, it's a probably one of the most difficult environments for any government, any leader to operate in, 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, uh, whether it's how people describe their approval with the federal government, he is still largely, not in not you know, entirely, but largely has you know a lot of trust with people. People feel comfort confident that he at least knows what he's doing. And and so as as the year starts, I think he's still in a in a 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 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 it's it's a place that still means he can he can move issues forward and know that he's got the confidence, at least of the people who voted for him and and some who didn't, in fact.

Aaron Pete: 13:58

And Pierre Polyev 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 are his poll numbers at?

David Coletto: 14:14

Well, Polyev finds himself, you know, a few weeks out from his leadership review in a paradoxical situation, right? 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 Polyev is at once very popular among his base and increasingly unpopular among everybody else, which means he's he's got a much lower ceiling, really, in terms of his 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 and so he's gonna, if he is successful in in keeping the leadership, and I suspect he will be, if he wants to win in an election in the future, he's gonna have to find a way either to grow that audience or win simply by pulling out his his current supporters. And so Polyev has has a lot of work to do, I think, but on the other hand, is still a 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. Uh not on the question of who do you who do you think makes the best prime minister, but on certainly on 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.

Aaron Pete: 16:20

Pierre Polyev's 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 like ability, uh 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 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, the 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.

David Coletto: 17:25

Well, I think, look, I think context still is important. And Mr. Polyev 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. Polyev 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 re-elected. Mr. Paul they overwhelmingly felt that Justin Trudeau's time had expired, and so Mr. Polyev was an easy alternative for people. They they they they liked him or they didn't, but they 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 uh 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 it's AI, it's economic insecurity, it's climate change, it's 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 Polyev, 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's very good at being Mark Carney. I know that sounds weird, but he's like, you know, he is the 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, uh, 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 you need to be the opposite of Mark Kearney. 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 just friction-inducing kind of approach, but there is still a sizable number who do. And the question I think Mr. Polyev is probably answered is he doesn't think he can out Carney Carney. 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 that more of those people will want something that he's offering than what. Mark Carney's offering. And that I think is the fundamental fundamental problem. It's like, you know, I do a lot of market uh marketing work. And you never want to be the Me Too product. You want to be the dominant 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 in 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 that 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 statesman-like, but but that but that that that stability-inducing force in our politics, especially given our proximity to the United States and all of the disruption that Donald Trump has created pretty much on a daily basis.

Aaron Pete: 21:16

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?

David Coletto: 21:27

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 Kearney government has made around, for example, pipelines, climate policy has probably alienated some of those New Democrat voters that I do think 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 qu 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 who has the upper hand. But there's three 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's taking the part 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 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 and the party and the country.

Aaron Pete: 23:22

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?

David Coletto: 23:51

Yeah, I think they have, right? I think on a 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 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 Pier Polyev 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 at, could be open, right? And 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 and the more populist right in in both Canada and many countries. And so I do think there is a space. Does it, is 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.

Aaron Pete: 25:55

Humbly, I'll admit I haven't followed it closely, but I've heard increased discussions about Quebec and the Bloc Quebécois. Where are they at now? Has something changed between Quebecers and the relationship with the liberals?

David Coletto: 26:08

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 bloc 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 a 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 in 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 separatist versus federalist 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 fact factors that are playing themselves out in the province of Quebec.

Aaron Pete: 27:42

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?

David Coletto: 28:00

It's a great question. I I think, I mean, uh, it hasn't come up recently. I think, you know, remember, I don'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 hard for people to understand. But I think in this moment, I don't think there is one. And I think it's because the, you know, we talked about cost 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 Colombia, and and just sort of spiraling all of 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 it's understood to be a really important issue to many Canadians because of the cost of living and accessibility to a lot of issues, services and housing. So so I yeah, Aaron, I really don't think so because of just how saturating the the US government and Donald Trump is to so much that it's rightly the focus of both the media, I think in this case and the public.

Aaron Pete: 29:41

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 is 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?

David Coletto: 30:27

Yeah. 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 that the just the disruptions going around on around the world would 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 gonna cut off 40 and under. There's variance, obviously. If you're 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 younger in this country, and there is no doubt that you are at wit's end about how 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 we uh 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 a one in five Canadians said yes. But among Canadians under 30, that it rose to almost 40%, right? 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 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 you're you know, the amount of spending that we do on seniors is is substantially higher than it is among younger people. And so that 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 CBC, 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. They 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 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, that 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 Amandami in New York City, you get, in some ways, Pierre Polyev in Canada, who I think effectively spoke, particularly to young men's desires for disruption. And and so, yeah, generation is a huge, is a huge factor in in our politics today, and it is right around the world.

Aaron Pete: 34:42

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 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?

David Coletto: 35:49

Well, I think to some extent, you know, the counter to Aaron Gunn's of the world is the Mark Carnes, 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 as a path to doing the things he thought needed to be done. But I do think that, you know, uh 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 Polyev, for example, versus a Mark Carney, like 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 Polyev, 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 of the NDP, he is very much one driven by uh 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 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 game. And I think politics sometimes is seen as more of a sport, and that attracts a different type of person than somebody who's driven by issues, to your point about Mr. Gunn.

Aaron Pete: 37:48

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?

David Coletto: 38:04

I think it I think it plays a role. I think it it is a factor that we can't not that we we have we can't not ignore, I guess, in Canada, Canada. We're nowhere as near as polarized as the United States. I think our media environment still isn't as as rigid and and structured around like your ideology or your partisanship, then means you you consume certain media. But it's it's still a factor. And I think it's it's in part driven by certainly, again, that 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 on YouTube, it's because you've told the algorithm that you really like this content and they're gonna keep feeding more and more of it, and they're gonna drive you into a deeper kind of uh engagement with that kind 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-sum thinking, which in itself creates polarization, right? Because zero-sum thinking is basically the view that if I am gaining, someone else is losing. And if you're losing, I must I I only gain from you losing. And that creates friction, it creates it forces people to reinforce their identities, to find things that that that that connects them with one cause and not another, and and opens up some some big wide gaps. So it is an issue. It's an issue that's hard sometimes to operationalize. Like it seems more conceptual than in reality. But you 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 Polyev says simply because Pierre Polyev said it. Right. 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, anymore in conversations. And we can live our whole lives, uh, especially younger people who 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.

Aaron Pete: 40:32

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 Cowuchan 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 gonna get there. And that's left a lot of people saying, how long? How much are we gonna spend? When does this all end? Like we're 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 steel 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 their what they're doing in their workplace, all of those places. So the focus has 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 with some of those topics?

David Coletto: 42:22

Look, I think you're you're you're you're right on that. I I in my presentations I show Masloc's hierarchy of needs, right? That triangle or that pyramid that you know, if you if you've seen, or just search on on online and you'll find it. And it basically, you know, the theory is that 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 are 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, so making sure I've got food, housing, you know, clothing, a job, and or my personal or economic security. That's the that's the second rump. 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 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 gonna be much more open to a conversation about things that might take away something from me in order to correct uh 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, your gonna natural inclination is to say, well, not now. Like now's 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 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 your your your 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 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 creating energy projects and moving fast, because if we don't, I'm scared we're gonna lose so much. And so it's very hard to get people to empathize with others, especially when they're feeling that way too.

Aaron Pete: 45:32

As you look outwards too, I think you're probably hearing rumblings of an upcoming potential election uh in the spring because Mark Carney didn't end up with his majority. I've heard it on CBC and I I think a few other uh news organizations. What do you think the driving ethos of the election is? Is it hope? Is it fear? Like I know we can't make predictions about exactly what's gonna happen because as we already saw, it's very hard to predict things even a month though. But what do you what do you expect to see as kind of the fundamental emotion people are feeling?

David Coletto: 46:06

Well, I do think there is a likelihood, I I think it's a fairly good likelihood we will have an election unless you know that that majority is secured. And even then, a one or two-seat majority isn't really that secure. And if you're Mark Carney, and if 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 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 that the the the the 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, uh 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 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 inf 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 Pierre Poly of the disruptor, I have a hunch that more people, then even in the 2025 election, will navigate towards the Kearney option and probably give him his majority, which frankly is why I think we saw during the budget vote 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. They 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.

Aaron Pete: 48:45

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?

David Coletto: 48:56

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 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 and so, yeah, yeah, anytime I can just turn it off and get out of here is is always good.

Aaron Pete: 49:41

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.

David Coletto: 49:52

It's great to see you, Aaron. Thanks for having me.

Aaron Pete: 49:54

Thank you.