Given the wild trajectory of federal politics since the start of the year, with the Liberals rising an eye-popping 25 percentage points in the polls, you’d think Pierre Poilievre was running a fault-filled campaign. Talk last week of internal disarray at his campaign HQ fuelled the perception.

But it is hardly the case. A bad campaign would have resulted in fading and falling support for the Conservatives. But the party’s high support numbers have barely changed since the months before the campaign began. They are still hovering in the 40-per-cent neighbourhood, which is often enough to form a majority government.

The problem isn’t any decline in their numbers. It’s the collapse in support for the NDP and Bloc Québécois, most of which is going to the Liberals.

On policy, the Poilievre campaign is having an effective roll-out. The platform is sufficiently conservative without scaring off voters for being overly hardline. It is attractive enough that several planks have been copied by the Mark Carney Liberals. These include the move away from the consumer carbon tax, a cut in capital-gains taxes and a middle-class tax cut.

Blunders can be expected in any campaign. The well-organized Conservative effort has been free of major foul-ups.

A big test for any campaign is support on the ground. The Poilievre campaign is scoring in this respect as well, drawing huge enthusiastic crowds to many of its rallies.

But good campaigns don’t necessarily translate into winning campaigns. Variables that can’t be controlled intervene, and such was the case with Donald Trump’s 51st-state threats.

Much of the criticism has focused on Mr. Poilievre’s positioning with respect to Mr. Trump. But there was no great political play available to him on this score. His populist brand of conservatism obviously aligns more closely to Mr. Trump’s Republicans than the Liberals’ brand. Large numbers in his Conservative Party are supportive of Mr. Trump.

It hardly helped when Alberta’s UCP Premier Danielle Smith stuck her foot in Mr. Poilievre’s mouth, with her observation that he was “very much in sync” with the Trump administration.

It took a bit too long, but Mr. Poilievre did make clear his strong opposition to Mr. Trump, and he has avoided, in part owing to Mr. Carney’s failure to highlight it, the populist connection becoming lethal for him.

With the spirit of patriotism and unity strong across the land, Mr. Poilievre has had to be careful not to play to his image as a polarizer. He did well to distance himself from the outrageous fearmongering of former Reform Party leader Preston Manning, who said last week that “a vote for the Carney Liberals is a vote for Western secession – a vote for the breakup of Canada as we know it.”

This was decidedly rich coming from Mr. Manning, a regionalist with an impressive track record for fomenting West-East division. With his Reform Party, he rebelled against Brian Mulroney, who had done much to reach out to the West. He divided conservatives into two parties, helping set the table for 13 years (from 1993 to 2006) of Liberal Party rule.

Mr. Poilievre’s mistakes were made before the election campaign, not during it. Instead of being a daily demonizer of Justin Trudeau and the carbon tax, he should have realized there was a likelihood the Liberals would have a new leader who would drop the tax.

The Trump threat, the main reason for the Liberal surge, was a stroke of ill-fortune for Mr. Poilievre. But while he has distanced himself from the authoritarian demagogue, there are still reminders – such as his take on slashing foreign aid and his rejection of mainstream media in favour of Fox News-style prejudices – that Mr. Poilievre is at heart an ideologue.

Beyond policy, there is a persona problem. Mr. Poilievre runs behind his party in favourability ratings and is far in back of Mr. Carney. Though he has changed his look – he doesn’t resemble a 1950s Prairie preacher so much any more – he still comes across as too starched.

It appeared Mr. Poilievre might soften his approach to appeal to moderates. But he returned to smarmy-pitbull mode this week, calling Mr. Carney, among other Trump-styled insults, a “grifter.” Given Mr. Carney’s degree of global experience, sophistication and erudition compared to Mr. Poilievre, it was an ignorant thing to say.

It’s evidence of the Conservatives’ brain trust being in high dudgeon over the fact that they’ve run a strong campaign, but are still trailing the Liberals. Their leader is under pressure to go for broke, to bomb the bridges.

If he tries it, the question is: Who will it blow up?