Never in his political career has Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre been humiliated like this. Not even close.

The number of personal apologies he has delivered in his 20 years of politics could probably fit on one hand (in fact, I can think of just two), while still leaving his middle finger free to wave at anyone who passes by. Indeed, it has been a series of successes for the once-youngest MP, then star cabinet minister, then leader of the Official Opposition, whose two-decade rise in politics suddenly fell out the bottom on Monday evening.

There might be ways to excuse, explain and rationalize the Conservatives’ loss to the Liberals during this election, but there is nothing to palliate Mr. Poilievre’s loss of his own seat. It is the worst thing that could happen to someone who has made a career out of never showing weakness, simply because it is so utterly humiliating.

Mr. Poilievre, who exerted extraordinary control over his caucus (the unofficial rule for Conservative candidates was to skip local riding debates and not speak with the media) and the party’s membership (by meddling in nomination races) is now at the mercy of both if he wants to get back in the House as the leader of the Official Opposition. He now needs someone to do him a favour – to offer up their just-won seat to him to run in a by-election – and someone else to stand in for him in Parliament because he has not actually been elected to be there. Humiliating.

Those outside the party cannot fathom how the Conservatives could even consider keeping Mr. Poilievre as leader. He blew a 25-point lead, they say, and he consistently polls behind his party. Why would the CPC want to keep him around?

It’s worth noting, firstly, that there is a very human inclination to generalize and transpose our feelings onto others; that is to say, if we viscerally can’t stand someone, it’s hard to conceive of how others might feel differently. But the reality in this election is that more than eight million people in this country voted for the Conservatives – some, because of Mr. Poilievre, and no doubt for others, despite him. But there is no question that Mr. Poilievre is popular in caucus, among CPC members and yes, across Canada, and that popularity has the potential to grow if – and only if – Mr. Poilievre is genuinely humbled by this first significant loss. That will mean putting that middle finger down, and looking at himself to see what went wrong.

For any party, the decision to boot a leader should be forward-looking; it should not necessarily be about how badly he screwed up his first kick at the can (and let’s be clear: Mr. Poilievre missed the can altogether while he was chasing the ghost of Justin Trudeau), but about whether he has the capacity to improve, and whether someone else would likely do better. The gains the party made under Mr. Poilievre are significant; Conservatives picked up seats in Ontario ridings heavily populated by blue-collar workers, by students, and new Canadians, which represents a meaningful broadening of the Conservative base.

Was their success because of the Conservative Party generally, or because of Mr. Poilievre himself? Hard to say. But I suspect more factory workers in Windsor West are familiar with Mr. Poilievre’s “Boots not Suits” slogan and manner of speaking about the trades than they are with page 20 of the party’s platform regarding RESP eligibility for apprenticeship credentials. And I also suspect many young people appreciate his particular style of talking about their economic struggles, and not simply that he talks about them generally. During this election, Mr. Poilievre was able to capture the populist right flank of the electorate by essentially extinguishing the People’s Party, while also bringing new voters into the fold. It’s not clear that a different leader would be able to keep that coalition together.

But Mr. Poilievre also carried himself with the hubris of someone who has never experienced a political loss: by antagonizing the media, by sparring with provincial premiers, by muzzling his candidates and making the campaign all about him. It’s the type of childish campus Conservative antics that scare progressive Canadians into voting strategically, and tune moderate voters out from his message. That was to the Conservatives’ misfortune, because his message was a good one – so much so that Prime Minister Mark Carney adopted much of his platform on his own. But the sophomoric antics made it such that many Canadians simply didn’t see him as a leader.

All of this is to say that Mr. Poilievre doesn’t need to become a “Liberal-lite” to appeal to more Canadians; he just needs to cut the crap. A chastened Pierre Poilievre – and a chastened Conservative Party – would do well to show some humility in the face of this loss, which was unfathomable just months ago. If he has that capacity, and has the capacity to finally grow up, then it is in the party’s strategic interest to keep Mr. Poilievre as leader.