What counts as a strong argument in people's minds will never cease to amaze me. First, Poilievre has no background in economics. Let's state that upfront lest we believe he has some special knowledge of things. Second, macroeconomists in general are pretty bad at predicting what the economy will do. So the argument here is not only is Poilievre some kind of autodidactic economist, but that he is a brilliant one at that and manages to make macroeconomic predictions that others cannot. Third, making a single prediction is hardly, "bang on for economic predictions over the past two years." Do you have other data points? I'd prefer to see 3 or 4 or even a dozen. Fourth, you have to demonstrate that his prediction came true for exactly the reasons believed it will. Failure to establish causality is a failure to provide evidence.