Singh unfortunately didn't help the cause much. But I think it was actually Pollievre who helped Carney with such incredible efficiency. I agree, it makes no sense, but PP's innate reality distortion field was apparently large enough to cause some sort of gravitational lensing around Carney too that made him temporarily look like an anti-Trump.

I also think Carney did particularly well on the military topic, especially compared to previous Liberal positions, which might have genuinely appealed to some NDP voters disillusioned with the NDP's traditionally weak stance on defense, in light of the active military threats against us and our allies.

Personally, I understand where the NDP's defense policy is coming from, and I think it's responsible and probably even the right way to approach it holistically. We don't need to beg Europe to partner with us, even if they're obviously willing to, we have everything we need to develop our own military and industry on our own, but it will take time for those investments to pay off, and I get the desire to shortcut some of that with European assistance. But maybe people thought we wouldn't be able to have socialism and kick Trump and Putin's teeth in at the same time. I don't know.

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago

Well it's worth noting that poilievre got almost the same popular vote as carney did. And there's no doubt the Carney had his own trudeomanium moments there in the campaign where people flock to him because they believed in him not because they didn't believe in Poilievre. In fact based on the polling poilievre was gaining ground through most of the election.

None of the polling I saw indicated that defense was a major issue. And it wasn't really brought up a lot during the election, that was more post-election. So while anything is possible I'm not seeing a lot of evidence for that being a major driving force

I don't know that the new NDP is going to be pushing terribly hard for military spending.