Kory Teneycke’s mid-mortem of the Conservative campaign
When commentary and analysis include accusing competitors of malpractice
There are campaign post-mortems—and then there are pre-mortems. Rarely used, yet highly effective. Instead of picking through the wreckage after the project has crashed, pre-mortems gather the team before launch to envision a future in which the initiative has spectacularly failed. Participants candidly explore plausible reasons for the disaster, airing dissent without being labelled pessimists or disloyal naysayers. Crucially, this collective act of constructive pessimism helps identify hidden pitfalls while there's still time to correct course. Yet, despite their clear value, pre-mortems remain uncommon. Perhaps because, at project kickoff, optimism is usually abundant, and imagining failure is rarely on the agenda.
Then there’s the even rarer mid-mortem—a strategic check-in during the campaign’s implementation. Unlike the hopeful conjecture of pre-mortems or the hindsight clarity of post-mortems, mid-mortems occur in real-time. These reviews candidly assess the campaign's progress, openly addressing what’s working, what's faltering, and what could still derail it. They force teams to confront uncomfortable realities, making course corrections immediately—not at some vague future date when it's too late.
The real power of a mid-mortem lies in its disciplined realism. When things go well, there’s a natural temptation to credit brilliance and overlook subtle risks. Conversely, setbacks often trigger defensive rationalizations about uncontrollable external factors. Mid-mortems neutralize these biases, reinforcing that success always offers room for improvement, and even seemingly external failures provide actionable insights.
Mid-mortems are timely, high-value interventions. They foster candour and sharpen team performance.
I've conducted several mid-mortems of marketing campaigns throughout my career and learned they're only constructive when market trends and performance data are available.
This brings us directly to Kory Teneycke’s very public mid-mortem of the Conservative campaign.
You can Google how Teneycke’s blunt comments reverberated through the media, amplified notably by Ontario Premier Doug Ford, or watch this interview with Vassy Kapelos. For an even more direct, curse-filled analysis, here's a transcription from the Curse of Politics podcast’s April 10, 2025, episode, aptly titled “Do You Believe the Polls”:
"I've seen no evidence that this campaign is at all interested in research at any fucking level. None.
When you're running around in fucking hoodies saying don't believe the polling, you are like the Flat Earth Society campaign. That's what you've actually reduced yourself to. Nobody runs into that in a Conservative party rally with some unsanctioned sweater.
Where is the evidence that they've done any polling and that they're listening to any polling? I know I've got a bad name with some people in the Conservative Party for pointing out at the beginning of the campaign that the election pivoted towards Trump. That was true in fucking December. And I know because I was running a campaign for Doug Ford in which we were doing polling and listening to it. It was true in December, January, February, and March. I see no evidence they've actually polled and are following any research or conventional campaign management. That's why they're losing.
Let's pause and point out: they've blown a 25 fucking point lead. We talk sometimes about campaign malpractice. Blowing a 25-point lead and being down 10 points is fucking campaign malpractice at the highest level. I'm sorry to point that out, Conservatives, but that's the reality.
If they're polling, they're not listening. It's as if they're saying, 'I don't wanna listen because that's not what I wanna believe.'
This campaign will be studied for decades as the biggest fucking disaster in terms of losing a massive lead despite obvious indicators you're fucking it up."
I'll leave it to political strategists and political scientists to dissect Teneycke’s assertions—it promises fascinating reading. Hopefully, these studies will also scrutinize Teneycke's role in the campaign.
As co-founder and CEO of Rubicon Strategy, Teneycke frequently reminds audiences of his success in Doug Ford’s recent majority victory. Indeed, his firm's website confidently states, "With Kory at the helm, victory isn’t just possible—it’s inevitable." Ford himself endorsed Teneycke mid-campaign: "He's tough as nails but he's the best campaign manager in the country. If Kory was running the campaign, I don't think Mr. Poilievre would be in the position he's in right now."
When asked by Kapelos why he chose to speak bluntly during the campaign rather than post-election—as he'd done with Andrew Scheer—Teneycke replied, “I’m a commentator. Yes, I’m a Conservative. I vote Conservative. I’ll vote for Poilievre. But my job is to give commentary and analysis on the election campaign. I’m not running the campaign—I’m analyzing it.”
Convenient positioning, perhaps, on a day he publicly accused Jenni Byrne and others of malpractice. But it’s difficult not to interpret Teneycke’s intervention as positioning himself and his firm as the indispensable - and inevitable - strategic advisor for conservatives provincially and federally.
As Lyndon B. Johnson once famously put it, “Better to have your enemies inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.”
Time will tell exactly where Teneycke and his competitors end up standing in the conservative tent.
Interesting. So this is what elections and politics is to some people and to some of those in charge. My god? An article about the election with not a word about the substance or what it was about!!! I heard that Ford and Pierre never talked about the issues during the campaigns, just one liners like : Ax the tax. Or cheap beer for all!
Not a good outlook for democracy or civic engagement.