Deconstructing two political attack ads
Two different ads, two different political parties, one playbook
It’s a great time to be a political junkie, isn’t it? We have one hell of a federal election campaign on our hands with so many fascinating storylines. No matter what side of the political aisle you sit on, I reckon we’ll be studying this campaign for decades to come.
Or we can start now!
This week, I thought it would be fun to deconstruct and analyze a political communications device that is a staple of every campaign: the attack ad. We all pretend to hate these ads, but the truth is, they often work. So we can clutch our pearls or try to understand what makes these so effective.
The big takeaway? We often accuse the other side of being nasty with their attacks. The truth is, they are much more alike.
Let’s start with a Conservative Party ad that dropped this week:
“Canada can't afford a fourth Liberal term”
Narrator: Why does Trump want a fourth Liberal term?
Trump: “I think it's easier to deal actually with a Liberal.”
Narrator: Because Mark Carney will continue the same Liberal policies that have made Canada weak.
Narrator: He'll keep oil in the ground.
Carney: “Oil reserves, proven reserves, need to stay in the ground.”
Narrator: And he'll keep Liberal laws that block mines, pipelines, and energy projects.
Carney: “we do not plan to repeal Bill 69.”
Narrator: Keeping Canada hostage to the Americans
Trump: “It's to our advantage actually.”
Narrator: Canada can't afford a fourth Liberal term.
Analysis
This video may only be 30 seconds short, but it packs an incredible amount in that time.
Storytelling
Crisis narrative. It uses a crisis storytelling structure, creating urgency by depicting Canada at a critical juncture. Why? To motivate immediate voter action, create urgency, and spell out what’s at stake if Canadians vote for a fourth Liberal term: imminent threats. This narrative encourages voters to reject continuity (represented by Carney) to get out of the crisis.
Problem-Villain-Solution. We see here a classic structure used in attack ads.
Problem: Canada is economically and politically weak.
Villain: Mark Carney and the Liberals, reinforced through association with Trump.
Solution: Reject Mark Carney and the Liberals.
Simplicity. Crisp, straightforward messaging with clarity that makes it instantly understandable and memorable. The word choices are precise and emotionally-charged—weak, hostage, advantage to Americans—which should cause a reaction from voters who are concerned about sovereignty and economic security.
Association and Framing
Guilt by association. The ad associates Mark Carney with Donald Trump in a negative way. No surprise, given how unpopular Trump is with Canadians. The Conservative campaign has felt this pain point since before the writ period. Being seen to be associated or liked by Trump isn’t popular right now. By starting the ad with Trump’s quote suggesting a preference for Carney and Liberals, Conservatives frame the Liberal Party and Mark Carney as aligned with foreign interests, specifically American interests led by Trump. The goal? Invoke suspicion and distrust.
Loss and weakness frame. The video highlights the big losses Canadians face if voters select Carney—economic harm, resource industry decline, and geopolitical vulnerability—tapping into fear of economic and political weakness. Negative framing is effectively employed here, associating Liberal policy decisions with national weakness and vulnerability.
Emotional Triggers
Fear appeal. It explicitly raises fears of economic vulnerability (Canadians hostage to the Americans), economic stagnation (keeping oil in the ground), and job insecurity (block mines, pipelines, and energy projects). The script writer clearly wants to tap into voters’ fears around economic insecurities, foreign dependency, and weakening national strength.
Emotion over reason. There are no facts in this video. It’s all about feelings. The explicit invocation of Trump is to create a visceral reaction among Canadians, who overwhelmingly reject Trump’s values. Then? Transfer that emotion onto Carney.
Enemy Construction
Establishing an external threat: By quoting Trump—“it’s to our advantage actually”—the ad constructs Trump and the U.S. as external threats benefiting from weak Canadian leadership. This implicitly positions the Conservatives as protectors of Canadian national interests.
Internal enemy framing: The ad frames Carney as a continuation of Liberal policies that are harmful, implicitly identifying Liberals as internal enemies undermining Canadian prosperity and sovereignty.
Use their words
Direct quotes: The use of real quotes from Trump and Carney adds credibility. Even if these quotes are taken out of context or simplified, they give viewers an impression of authenticity, or enough to raise their eyebrow, all while suiting the ad’s framing and narrative.
Contrast and Implicit Choice
Implicit contrast. By continuously pointing out the harm of Liberal policies (economic weakness, American advantage), the ad implicitly contrasts these alleged harms with an unstated but implicitly understood alternative: Conservative policies and leadership. The viewer is invited to conclude that the Conservatives offer protection, economic strength, and independence.
Communications Frameworks
Agenda setting. Defines the election’s primary focus as economic and national security concerns, forcing Liberals into a defensive posture on their economic record and thereby positioning Carney negatively in voters’ minds.
Issue ownership. Conservatives traditionally “own” economic and national security issues in voters’ perceptions. The ad leverages these established biases by framing Carney as economically irresponsible and politically naïve.
Priming and framing. Prepares voters to evaluate Carney through a lens of economic failure and national insecurity, thus “priming” the audience to perceive him unfavourably before Carney has a chance to frame himself.
Assessment
This ad is textbook stuff for a reason: it leverages proven persuasion frameworks—framing, emotional triggers, and agenda-setting—to leave voters emotionally unsettled and wary of Carney. Its vulnerability lies in potential backlash from voters who might view the Trump-Carney connection as too contrived.
Let’s move on to the Liberals:
“Right from Trump’s playbook”
Journalist: “How do you address the concerns of being too closely aligned to a foreign government that is threatening Canada and is destroying its own country right now?”
Quote on screen, overlayed on Pierre Poilievre’s face: “Is Pierre Poilievre too ‘in sync’ with Donald Trump? - CBC, March 29, 2025”
Quote on screen, overlayed on Pierre Poilievre’s face: “Pierre Poilievre, Canada’s Trump-inspired Conservative Leader - Le Monde, November 22, 2024
Pierre Poilievre: “Well your question is false.”
Trump: “Everything is broken.”
Poilievre: “Everything is broken.
Trump: “The left-wing censorship regime.”
Poilievre: “Their woke censorship ideology.”
Trump: “Defeating the radical left. “
Poilievre: “Radical leftist authoritarian.”
Poilievre: “It's not the American's fault. It's our fault. We're stupid.”
Analysis
The Liberal ad doesn’t hide its intent: make Poilievre look like Trump, and it lets these two subjects do all the talking. You’ll see, we have a lot of overlap with the Conservatives’ ad — proof that both campaigns are using tried and true political communications playbooks, even if they sport different colours—with a couple twists.
Storytelling
Crisis narrative.The video frames Canada at risk, suggesting that Pierre Poilievre is importing dangerous political ideas from the U.S. (Trump’s America), implying that Canada stands at a tipping point. This narrative structure creates urgency and clearly conveys what’s at stake if Canadians elect Poilievre: the importation of divisive American-style politics.
Problem-Villain-Solution. Hey look, does this look familiar? Different words, sure. But the same structure as the Conservative ad:
Problem: Canada faces potential social and political deterioration.
Villain: Pierre Poilievre, depicted as Canada’s Donald Trump—an importer of divisive American populism.
Solution: Reject Pierre Poilievre to protect Canadian democracy and stability.
Simplicity. Clear, direct, repetitive messaging. This is where there’s a big twist from the Conservative ad. The messaging is incredibly crisp and clear without the use of a narrator. The ad lets its two subjects, Trump and Poilievre do all the talking, using their own crisp language against them. “Everything is broken,” “Radical left” positions Poilievre as a Trump imitator. Words like “broken,” “censorship,” “radical left,” and “authoritarian”—are chosen to provoke emotional responses, reinforcing perceptions of extremism and instability.
Association and Framing
Guilt by association. The ad directly links Poilievre to Trump through synchronized quotes. Given Trump’s high unfavourability among Canadian voters, this association is politically damaging. By aligning Poilievre’s rhetoric explicitly with Trump’s, the Liberals frame him as dangerously out of step with Canadian values, prioritizing suspicion, anxiety, and distrust. It’s been Poilievre’s Achilles heel in this campaign, and the Liberals are pressing really hard on it.
Loss and weakness frame. The video subtly suggests that Poilievre adopting Trump’s rhetoric weakens Canada by importing political dysfunction and division from the U.S., tapping into Canadians’ fears of political instability, polarization, and declining democratic norms.
Emotional Triggers
Fear appeal. The ad warns voters of political instability (“destroying its own country”) and social division (“radical left,” “woke censorship”). It aims directly at voters’ fears around importing American-style polarization and extremism.
Emotion over reason: This ad operates primarily at the emotional level. Rather than offering evidence-based critiques, it uses dramatic parallels and Trump’s inflammatory language to generate strong, negative emotional responses toward Poilievre. The goal is to make voters feel deeply uncomfortable about Poilievre’s potential leadership. As we saw with the Conservative ad, there isn’t a single fact in this ad. It is all emotional.
Enemy Construction
External threat. The ad frames Trump and American politics explicitly as a dangerous external threat. By highlighting Trump’s aggressive, divisive rhetoric, it positions the Conservatives—and Poilievre specifically—as conduits of a foreign ideology incompatible with Canadian values.
Internal enemy framing. Pierre Poilievre is constructed explicitly as an internal threat, bringing harmful and polarizing American rhetoric into Canadian politics. This framing positions him as not merely an ideological opponent but a genuine threat to Canada’s social cohesion and democracy.
Use Their Words
Direct quotes. The parallel structure—pairing Trump’s words directly with Poilievre’s near-identical rhetoric—is killer. It enhances the perception of authenticity and credibility by using their own words against them. This method gives voters tangible proof, reinforcing the ad’s narrative without needing further explanation or interpretation.
Contrast and Implicit Choice
Implicit Contrast. By directly associating Poilievre with Trump’s rhetoric, the ad implicitly contrasts Poilievre’s divisive style with an unstated yet implicitly understood alternative: stable, inclusive, and “Canadian” leadership. The invitation? Reject division in favour of continuity, harmony, and stability—qualities implicitly associated with the Liberals, or so they hope. (And the polling numbers would suggest they’re right).
Communications Frameworks
Agenda setting. The ad strategically sets the election agenda around preventing American-style polarization and extremism. By associating Poilievre with Trump, the Liberals force Conservatives onto defensive terrain, compelling Poilievre to justify or distance himself from the Trump comparison rather than advocating proactively for his own platform.
Issue ownership. The Liberals traditionally “own” values related to inclusivity, moderation, and national unity among Canadian voters. By framing Poilievre as an extremist influenced by Trump, the ad reinforces these voter biases, implicitly casting Liberals as protectors of Canadian democracy and unity.
Priming and Framing. This video primes voters to evaluate Poilievre through the lens of Trump’s negative attributes—authoritarianism, extremism, divisiveness. It’s been one of the stories of the campaign: Liberals seeking to remind Canadians of the association many of them make between Trump and Poilievre.
Assessment
This is the far superior attack ad for two reasons:
The cognitive dissonance is palpable. Early in the ad, we see Poilievre’s defensive statement, “your question is false”, juxtaposed with his own rhetoric, forcing viewers into cognitive dissonance. They must reconcile his denial with the explicit evidence of his mimicry of Trump. This technique intensifies psychological discomfort and distrust. Combined with the mirror imaging we see throughout the ad, the combination is vicious.
It reads the moment. The ad implicitly relies on Canadian exceptionalism, which is undoubtedly the current vibe of the country, positioning the U.S (Trump’s America) as politically dysfunctional and divided, contrasted against our self-image as a moderate and stable place. This triggers national pride and anxiety about losing uniquely Canadian political values.
Attack ads aren’t subtle, but subtlety isn’t their job. They succeed because they trigger emotions, exploit fears, and draw clear battle lines. This election, Conservatives and Liberals have leaned on nearly identical strategies, weaponizing associations with Trump to discredit their opponents. A sign that Trump is very much on the ballot on April 28.