Didn't we have a thread on this a few weeks ago?
I mean anything can happen; never say never. However I cannot really think of a scenario where a politician seeking a fourth term in office where for two of those they were elected in minority governments who is polling 15-20% behind the opposition has managed to win. What is different this time to past elections is that Trudeau's personal figures are in the toilet - very distant second in Prefered PM to Polievre (only just ahead of Singh; and third party leaders tend to be underconsidered in these things because people do not think they'll win); and also -30 in approval ratings. Those latter two metrics are good to check how much of an upswing potential people have and these both show very limited potentials for the Liberals led by Trudeau. If they wanted to win they'd... encourage him to resign and find someone else but I don't know if there is anyone that can turn the tide.
Its the Canadian Liberals so they'll completely change after a loss and find someone else to win anyway
The only thing I disagree with is your ending. It's a myth that the Federal Liberal Party completely changes after a loss. For instance, both the Democratic and the Republican Parties have changed far more in even the last 40 years than the Federal Liberal Party.
I think if you actually checked the Canadian Liberal Party's history, and not this myth, you'd see that the Canadian Liberal Party has been broadly consistent - at least with leaders who have won elections - since 1948 when Louis St Laurent replaced the conservative minded Mackenzie King as Liberal leader and Prime Minister. This is 76 years since the Liberals had the political cipher but conservative leaning Mackenzie King as leader.
Even in areas where the Liberal Party has supposedly changed, such as concern for balanced budgets, it was either that the Liberals governed in generally very good economic times as from 1948 to 1957 and then from 1963 to 1968 under Pearson or were forced to balance the budget, as under Chretien/Martin.
In the four main areas of foreign policy, social welfare, social policy and economic development, the only area of any significant difference has been on how to promote economic development (blue Liberals vs. Red Liberals) with some saying that both Pierre Trudeau and his son have essentially ignored that unlike St. Laurent and Chretien/Martin.
Other changes such as on social policy have seen the Liberals constantly on the slightly progressive side of the Canadian public as a whole but never pushing the public beyond where it already is with evolutionary changes in party policy leading to the point where Justin Trudeau was able to block socially conservative candidates from getting nominated as they were 'inconsistent with the Charter.'
Similarly on social welfare, the Liberals, since St. Laurent, have been consistent - pushing for expansion but cautious to ensure the finances were available. For instance, hardly anybody remembers that Medicare was delayed from being fully implemented for several years after it became national law in 1966.
For instance, prior to that, from Wiki:
St. Laurent oversaw the expansion of Canada's social programs, including the gradual expansion of social welfare programs such as family allowances, old age pensions, government funding of university and post-secondary education and an early form of Medicare termed Hospital Insurance at the time.
Obviously support and opposition to specific policies should change over time as facts, evidence and circumstances change, but, the Canadian Liberal Party has been broadly consistent in its overall philosophy for the last 76 years.
