What? A leopard doesn't change its spots. Losing to the Conservatives wouldn't do a thing to change the DNA of the Liberal party.
Losing leads to reflection. A one-term Liberal government would be a historic loss. I'd argue that during the TV media age, it was easy to campaign on a National Daycare plan and then flush it once a majority was gained and the TV narrative shifted away from progressive promises. That's more difficult to do now and this kind of insincerity lingers a lot longer on the internet and with millenial voters. If we're using biological metaphors, I'd argue this isn't so much about changing DNA as adapting to the new political environment.
The Liberals are way better than the Conservatives.
Are they? Was Ignatieff way better? Was Liberal Scott Brison way better than Conservative Scott Brison? Did David Emerson suddenly stop being way better when he decided to become a Conservative? Have the Liberals been way better at preventing growing inequality during their majority governments over the last 3 decades?
I would agree that the Liberals are better than the Conservatives but that is honestly the political anaylsis of a 5-year old and is used too often as an excuse for the development of any real left strategy. It's the equivalent of saying heart disease is better than cancer.
There is no scenario under which it is better for the Conservatives to win than the Liberals.
Would you would prefer a Liberal majority with a strong Conservative opposition and the NDP obliterated to a weak Conservatve minority and a solid block of progressive NDP, Green MPs? I would argue the second scenario has more potential for progressives than the first. It would depend on progressive politicians being competent at using their leverage to enact change and not just score partisan points but there would at least be an angle to work.