This little web site – celebrating Year Fifteen in a few weeks! – attracts more than 140,000 visits a month, with many more during election campaigns.  I knew that.

What I didn’t know is what Alexa related to me this morning: the demographics of those who lurk here.

Given the predominance of male (or apparently male) commenters, I generally figured the broader readership skewed male, too. Apparently not.

Prime Minister-to-be Justin Trudeau made not a few promises on the election trail, and he received a very clear mandate from Canadians to implement them.  He said what he was going to do, and he is still giving every indication he is going to do what he said.

In many cases, the Liberal leader indicated an ambitious timeline for when these promises would be implemented.  In most cases, he indicated real change would be coming within months, not years.

Thus, the unscientific poll below.  Looking at it, you will see – as I did – that the new Liberal government has a very crowded legislative agenda looming on the horizon.  Is it possible to do all of these things in the next few weeks? If you think so, say so in comments, and tell us how you would pull it off.  If you think that one promise is more important that the others, say which one in the little online poll, below.

Whatever comes first, on one point we can all agree: real change is indeed coming.

What happened?

In politics, as in life, the simplest explanation — while beguiling — is not always the best one. So, too, was the interminable Canadian general election of 2015. No single thing can account for a change this big.

“Big” is the only way to describe what transpired during the nearly 80-day campaign, and its culmination on election night.

• When compared to 2011’s debacle, the Liberal Party of Canada increased its share of the vote by more than 4.1 million — an improvement of 60 per cent

• When also contrasted with 2011, the New Democratic Party shed nearly one million votes — a loss of almost 30 per cent support.

• There was an impressive and welcome improvement in voter turnout, which reached nearly 71 per cent — the highest it has been since 1993.

• Many, many seats changed hands, principally benefitting the Liberals — they took nearly 90 from the Conservatives, and almost 60 from the New Democrats.

In the House of Commons, the extent of the changes are seen most dramatically: the Conservatives have now assumed the spot held by the New Democrats, the New Democrats have been consigned to the lonely Commons perch once held by the Liberals — and, of course, the Liberals have vaulted to the lofty heights of government, and now sit where the Conservatives once did.

It all reflects what we saw during the writ and pre-writ period, with every one of the three main political parties having occupied the first, second or third spot in voters’ affections. For more than a year, Canadian voters were comparison-shopping, and moving around in a way that we had not seen before. At any given point, Harper, Trudeau, or Mulcair were considered the best choice for prime minister — and then summarily discarded.

Why?

As noted, while embracing a single, pithy explanation for it all is seductive, it probably isn’t the best way to approach an event as immense and as multifaceted as Election 2015. But a few observations can be made—three in particular, one for each of the parties.

1. The NDP: collapse

One million votes: that is what Thomas Mulcair lost from Jack Layton’s 2011 achievement. He lost those votes—and the NDP’s coveted official opposition role — for myriad reasons.

Chief among them: Mulcair did not win the debates. In an era where few voters still watch these televised contests, this should not have been fatal. But for Mulcair, it was: Ottawa-based journalists — the ones who still cling to the false notion that Question Period is relevant — were enthralled by the NDP leader’s prosecutorial style, and his ability to hold the government to account. They spared no glowing adjective, and predicted that Mulcair would win every debate. But he did not: his style was affected and condescending. He seemed phony.

Another problem: the NDP ran a low-bridge, frontrunner campaign when their frontrunner status was anything but certain. When an aspiring leader is always playing it safe, it gives wings to the notion that he or she is arrogant, or has a hidden agenda, or both. Paradoxically, taking no risks is in itself a risk. The NDP took none.

Finally, Mulcair embraced the losing electoral strategy of Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath and Toronto mayoral candidate Olivia Chow: he moved to the right. On deficits, on defence, on virtually any issue, the New Democrat leader didn’t sound like a traditional New Democrat. In his mad dash to get to the centre, he left behind his bewildered core vote, who accordingly wandered over to the more progressive Trudeau Liberals.

2. The Conservatives: Harperendum

In the days since Election 42, it has become conventional wisdom that the entire result can be reduced to a single cause: namely, that everyone hated Stephen Harper, and everyone voted to get rid of him.

As mesmerizing as this rationalization may be, it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. The numbers tell the tale: the Conservative Party shed only 50,000 votes between 2011 and 2015. In percentage terms, they dropped by less than a single point. That is all.

While many Canadians may have professed to detest the departing Prime Minister, his core vote did not, and does not. Through serial scandals and assorted policy Vietnams, the one-third of Canadians who self-identify as Conservative did not give up on their man. Unlike progressive voters — who are highly promiscuous and flit, butterfly-like, between the Liberals, the New Democrats and the Greens — the Conservative bedrock remained with Stephen Harper.

Harper’s principal problem was that he was a Prime Minister who had been in power for a decade—and every prime minister becomes unpopular after a decade. Harper had held onto his loyalists, but he could not acquire new ones. In Election 2015, poll after poll registered the same result: only a miniscule number of voters indicated the Conservative Party was their second choice. To win again, Harper needed to grow his vote by six or seven more percentage points. But he could not, and did not. It ended his decade.

3. The Liberals: undersell, overperform

Justin Trudeau won, mostly, because he adopted Jean Chrétien’s well-known maxim: he undersold, but he over-performed.

In this regard, the Liberal leader was greatly assisted by his opponents. Their research had clearly shown them that Trudeau was seen by the electorate as too young and too inexperienced, and therefore a risk. The New Democrats and the Conservatives accordingly spent untold millions on ad campaigns to exploit this vulnerability.

In one extraordinary bit of political symmetry, the Tories and the Dippers came up with nearly-identical anti-Trudeau ad campaigns in virtually the same week in August. Just prior to the dropping of the writ, the Conservatives commenced aggressively promoting their ubiquitous “just not ready” theme about Trudeau — and the New Democrats debuted advertising stating that “Justin Trudeau just isn’t up to the job.”

The CPC and the NDP didn’t land on the same strategy by chance: their quantitative and qualitative findings had shown them it would hurt Trudeau. And, for a time, it did.

The “just not ready” and “just not up to the job” attacks also produced an unexpected result, however. They lowered expectations about Justin Trudeau so low that he could not help but exceed them. In debates, in media encounters, at rallies and on the hustings, Trudeau did far better than any of us had been led to believe he would. The campaign, which went on for week after interminable week, assisted him, too: he literally grew as a candidate within it. The Justin Trudeau who started the campaign was not the one who ended it.

Those, in the end, are the three most plausible explanations for what happened in Election 2015. The NDP tried to be something they weren’t; the Conservatives could not acquire new friends; and the Liberals were grossly underestimated.

There is no single, simple reason for the result in Election 2015.

But, for our purposes, three will suffice.

As of today, the community mailbox insanity is on hold, thanks to Trudeau’s election victory. 

And, two years ago, I thought it would sink the Harper Conservatives. Here’s what I wrote back then.  Was I right?

The minister responsible issued a terse statement, but gave no interviews. Ditto the prime minister. Some hardy Conservatives, however, offered up a few talking points in support of their ritual mass political suicide. These are listed below. 

One, two-thirds of Canadians don’t get home delivery anymore. Why should that last one-third? We think everyone deserves to pay more and get less! 

 Two, the postal service can’t afford to provide postal services anymore. And those many years where we were reporting that we were doing well? Er, never mind. Now we’re doing poorly. 

 Three, no one will care, no one will notice. And your disabled, 90-year-old grandma, who can barely get to the front door, let alone a “community mailbox” several blocks away? Well, she needs the exercise. 

 If the Harper folks had sent me a letter, I would have sent one back. This is what I would’ve said: “Don’t trust the Evil Empire.” And, P.S. 

“You’ve just lost the next election.”

Over on Facebook, Mark Marissen posted that he had been the subject of a U.S. diplomatic cable, published by Wikileaks. Cool, thought I. So I went to their searchable web site – and who knew they had a searchable web site? – and there I was.  [Historians please note: I quit after Ignatieff dumped all of my friends.  Canadians then went on to dump him - Ed.]

What is most amazing isn’t that I was named in a “top secret” missive. What is amazing is that grown-ups are actually paid to write this crap, and that they get to stamp “top secret” on it.

The world is crazy.

…as our pal Michael O’Shaughnessy aptly put it.

The Conservative Party’s leadership race is underway, whether official or not.

Because I am a student of politics, and because I am unselfishly devoted to my readers and the greater good, I have helpfully put together a Conservative Party leadership poll, below.  It is accurate 19 times out twiddley, which is about how accurate most of the real polling agencies are, these days.

Personally, I do not see the Conservative Party dead, at all.  They remain a threat, and smart Liberals won’t forget that.  In 2015, the CPC dropped just 50,000 votes from their 2011 total – which represents less than one percentage point.  They have representation in every region except the Atlantic, and they will likely have effective performers in the House of Commons.

The current anonymous sniping in the morning papers (social conservatives vs. progressive conservatives, West vs. East, everyone vs. Jenni Byrne, blah blah blah) isn’t something that should worry them.  In fact, as one wag put it, Conservatives should be worried if the sniping wasn’t happening.  You only ever learn how to win by first losing.

Thus, this here poll.  Whether you are a Conservative or not, you should pretend – however briefly – that you are, and you are a delegate to their convention.  Which of the folks below – listed alphabetically, and with the home province and most-recent portfolio indicated – do you think can win against the Trudeau Government™? (Mea culpa: I forgot Maxime Bernier – I see from today’s Hill Times that John Reynolds wants him. I’ve now added him. My sincere apologies to the Beauce chapter of the Hells Angels for my lack of diligence. Oh, and I also forgot Tony Clement. There’s a message, there. Those who have explicitly and clearly said no thanks – Messrs. Wall and Charest – are being taken at their word.)

Vote now, vote often! Politicos do, whenever they can get away with it!

UPDATE: Baird has issued a press release to explicitly rule out running! I guess we should consider him only a “maybe.” Or, not. Took him off.

Anyone miss me yet? Anyone?