Ontario municipal elections, (October 27, 2014) - Master thread

[Hatman 🍁]

How can anyone be a soft Rob Ford voter, letalone 1/3 of his base??

After all he has been through, anyone who still supports him is not going to magically stop supporting him. Every poll shows his approval at 40%, and has not wavered since his first scandal. There is very little that can possibly shake his base. He'd literally have to kill someone I think, at this point to shake his base apart.

Any "soft Rob Ford voter" left his camp after the first few scandals happened 3 years ago.

John Tory knows this, and that's why he's not going to attack Rob Ford during the campaign, because there is nothing to gain from it. The real campaign will between Tory and Chow to see who can get the anti-Ford vote. 

[Hatman 🍁]

I think you're underestimating how loyal Ford's supporters are. I would love to meet this mythical soft Ford voter and ask them why they would possibly dither on such a controversial person.

It's true that the campaign is in its early days, but I don't think that matters due to the media spotlight on Rob Ford. Everyone knows who he is and everyone has an opinion of him.

Ford's support will remain at 30% well into the campaign, which will make it impossible for him to slip into the "poor third" category. 30% could put him in third, but if he is in third, it would be a close third. If it were possible for Ford's support to drop to 20%, I could agree with you, but again, he'd have to literally murder someone for that to happen at this point.

[Hatman 🍁]

I'll believe it when I see it.  Polls have also proven that those people haven't actually budged in their support in the last three years.

[Hatman 🍁]

Good news!

New FR poll for Toronto (change from last poll):

Chow: 36 (+5)
Ford: 28 (-3)
Tory: 22 (-5)
Stintz: 5 (-1)
Soknacki: 2 (n/c)

Like I said, Chow's support comes from Tory more than Ford.

[Hatman 🍁]

But but we were told that Ford's absolute FLOOR was 30 or even 35% and that he could never possibly conceivably get less than that - now the latest poll has him at 28% - and I think that is likely his ceiling more than his floor.

28% is within the margin of error of 30%. And you're right about that being his ceiling. It's his ceiling, and his floor.

[Hatman 🍁]

Ah, but how do you know that?

Well, I'm basing it on a number of factors. Rob Ford's approval rating has remained steady throughout his term, since the first scandals shook his support. The man has gone through the worst personal scandals in Canadian history, and yet his approval has remained steady. This tells me that his base is as loyal as it gets. If they haven't budged by this point, they aren't going to be budged through the campaign. Especially if John Tory remains in third.

A few things could shake his support. If Tory passed Ford, some anti-Chow pro-Ford supporters might jump ship to stop Olivia. Some financial scandal involving Ford might shake his base too, as something like that would be more scandalous to his base. If Ford was misspending tax dollars, Ford nation could take a hit. After all, they dont care about his personal problems, as long as their taxes are low.  However, as much of an awful person as he is, I think Ford is genuine when it comes to not wanting to spend tax dollars inappropriately on personal things. For example, I think his recent trip to LA was spent out of his own pocket, despite him claiming the trip was to promote the city. (I could be wrong here, though).

So, the only votes up for grab are anti-Ford centrists (think Liberals). That's why most of the vote swinging in this campaign I believe will be between Tory and Chow.

[Hatman 🍁]

I still believe there is no such thing as a Ford moderate. At least not anymore.

remember that "approval" doesn't necessarily mean a "firm and solid voting intention" kind of approval. 

True. His approval has consistently been at 40% over the last 2.5 years, and his vote share is 10% lower.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's a lot of debris, but it's much too wet to catch on fire. No amount of lit-match-throwing will cause it to catch.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Touche, but they've been doing a lot of polling on the matter, so surely they're not all outliers.


Listen folks, Rob Ford staying at 30% can only help Olivia Chow. If he sinks below Tory, you're going to see Tory come on strong and make things difficult for her. However, if she is the de facto anti-Ford candidate, than she will win a lot of support she wouldn't normally be getting because centre-right voters will be holding their noses to vote vote for her to get Ford out.

If I were advising Chow, I would only play lip service to attacking Ford. Any loose Ford votes are going to Tory. Going after his personal life would be a no-go, since everyone knows about it anyways. (In an interview with her, Evan Solomon kept asking why she wouldn't go after his personal life. I'm surprised that she didn't say that it was pointless because everyone knows already). My big advice would be to go after centrist voters, and if you have to attack anyone, attack John Tory.

[Hatman 🍁]

http://www.forumresearch.com/forms/News%20Archives/In%20The%20News/19999_TO_Mayoral_Approval_and_Horserace_News_Release_%282014.03.14%29_Forum_Research.pdf

-Ford's share of the tree-way vote has only varied been between 26% and 36% since 2012. In the fave-way vote, has between 25% and 35%.
-Ford's support doesn't change between the 3-way race and the 5-way race. (28%) and hasn't ever been very different.
-Ford's approval rating has been more or less the same since Summer 2011. Except for a few outliers, has almost always been between 40-45%.

[Hatman 🍁]

I think one thing we all have to remember is, this isn't your typical campaign. Ford has been in full campaign mode since the last election, and everyone in Toronto knows who he is and has an opinion of him. I don't think "campaign season" is going to change people's opinions of him. Campaign season will matter for the rest of the candidates, though.

[Hatman 🍁]

Ford has been in full campaign mode since the last election, and everyone in Toronto knows who he is and has an opinion of him.

Everybody "knowing who he is and having an opinion" and all, I insist that it's still quite fluid.  It isn't just his raw campaigning, it's what his campaigning is playing off against in real time.

Plus, *his* circumstance is quite fluid, in terms of health, legalities, etc.  You're going by the assumption that people will vote 28% bottom for a jailbird or a corpse.

Obviously him dying or going to jail is going to affect his numbers. My point is exactly that it would take something huge like that to lower his approvals.

Keep in mind that Forum (for some reason) never ever gives numbers on how many people are undecided and you can be sure that AT LEAST 10% are undecided since that's the norm in almost every poll on voters support. When a poll says 28% would vote for Ford - that is among DECIDED voters - but I would hypothesize that the people who are undecided are overwhelmingly anti-Ford people who are undecided between Chow, Tory and the others.

Yes, exactly! Almost all the undecideds are undecided between Tory and Chow. In fact, it's probably much higher than 10%. That's my whole point, DL. The undecideds aren't undecided about Ford, they're undecided about which non-Ford candidate to choose.

[Hatman 🍁]

Opposition need not be united, unless a fourth big name candidate enters. If Ford stays at 30%, then it would take Chow and Tory to be dead-even for Ford to come up the middle.

But I would be one of those people to suggest that de-amalgamation would be a solution to this mess. When you get these mega cities that combine progressive central cores and reactionary suburbanites, than more often than not the larger suburbs win out in the end. I'm still amazed that David Miller ever got elected in the first place; neither Hamilton nor Ottawa have been able to elect progressive mayors since our amalgamations.

[Hatman 🍁]

I'm not opposed to regional governments, Al.  The way things worked before amalgamation were better (far from perfect, but better). There was a regional government that took care of region-level things (eg Public Transportation), and local governments to take care of more local concerns.

[Hatman 🍁]

Chow's not really seen as a populist. Ford Nation considers her a "downtown elite". I could see her picking up some Chinese Ford voters, but that's it.

I was opposed to amalgamation in the 1990s, but it's pretty hard to put back at this point.  I think what is needed is some budgets and powers given to the community councils, a proposal suggested by Joe Pantalone in the last election.

Hamilton and Ottawa I would argue were worse, given that at least Metro Toronto was entirely urbanized and Hamilton and Ottawa include a lot of exurban territory.

It is likely too late, I agree. I think adopting borough councils would be the best plan. Dividing the city into boroughs has been discussed here a bit.

[Hatman 🍁]

But I would be one of those people to suggest that de-amalgamation would be a solution to this mess. When you get these mega cities that combine progressive central cores and reactionary suburbanites, than more often than not the larger suburbs win out in the end. I'm still amazed that David Miller ever got elected in the first place; neither Hamilton nor Ottawa have been able to elect progressive mayors since our amalgamations.

And yet, if one goes back a generation to Eggleton's long tenure and June Rowlands scotching Jack Layton's mayoral bid, it seemed "you can't beat the machine" terminally implausible that a progressive could win the mayoralty in the *former* City of Toronto.  And yet, a decade later, David Miller won Megacity.

I think the clue here is for a reasonably "progressive" candidate to get a multi-pronged team together and not stoop to simple-mindedly bashing and cretinizing "reactionary suburbanites"--sure, you may not *win* them all, but at least you'll get respect, and insight into what makes them tick.  That's what Miller had; and that's what latter-day Layton, as federal party leader, discovered.  (And then, of course, there's Naheed Nenshi in that ultimate "reactionary-suburbia" bastion of Calgary.)

The old city of Toronto is very much different than it used to be. Back then, the Tories used to win seats there! If it were a separate city now, it would elect mostly left of centre mayors. Ottawa is in the same boat. Before amalgamation, we only elected one progressive mayor in our history. But today, it could be possible. (I may be wrong, but I think Alex Munter won the old city of Ottawa in 2006). But now in post-amalgamation land, the best we can hope for is a right of centre Liberal like our current mayor.  Ottawa is much more conservative than Toronto, and if Munter couldn't win in 2006, I don't think any Progressive will.

I don't know about Miller, but Nenshi is an incredible politician. He transcends politics. But don't forget, he did get elected thanks to a 3-way split in the vote. But, politicians like Nenshi and Don Iveson in Edmonton are the kind of people progressives need to put into place in order to win. They have great senses of humour, they're in touch with the people, they have a great social media presence, and they're just not your typical politician. Olivia Chow, as a former partisan will find it difficult to fit into that mould. I can see some evidence of her trying though (taking a "selfie" and putting it all over Twitter), but her speaking style is very much like a politician, and she is going to need to shed that if she wants to be compared to Nenshi or Iveson.

Obviously you can't win if you're "cretinizing" suburban voters. My commentary comes from my own personal disdain for suburbanites, and I wouldn't recommend any mayoral candidate take my own personal talking points on the matter

[Hatman 🍁]

I'm not opposed to regional governments, Al.  The way things worked before amalgamation were better (far from perfect, but better). There was a regional government that took care of region-level things (eg Public Transportation), and local governments to take care of more local concerns.

But by the 1990s the 'regional' level no longer covered the entire metropolitan region or anything close to it. Local government structures should at least try to reflect reality.

I do agree, though, that in a large city it makes sense to have lower level local government units that provide some services (something closer to the model of London boroughs than New York ones, even). And you might as well use the old borough boundaries for those.

And there are other reasons to be displeased with Canadian amalgamation policies: the implementation was handled extremely badly, no doubt about that. Of course (and to make it clearer where I'm arguing from) British deamalgamation policies in the 1980s were also handled extremely badly and had pretty lamentable results, so...

Perhaps a Greater Toronto regional government should exist? Or maybe even make it its own province! I like the London borough system a lot, and I think it should be applied to Toronto, Ottawa and Hamilton.

As far Ottawa, it is probably actually too big (geographically) for even a regional government. No reason why a farmer in Burritt's Rapids should be in the city whatsoever. (And obviously the people most against the amalgamation were in the rural parts of the city, and they continue to vote contrary to the rest of the city)

Amalgamations and de-amalgamations should be done with the consent of the public. I'm usually against having referendums for everything, but this is one case where I would support it.

[Hatman 🍁]

Another (the original?) Canadian case where a "megacity" cheats progressivism, yet unmentioned: Winnipeg (y'know, Sam Katz and all).

But, really; we shouldn't be looking at things unilaterally through a "progressive" lens when it comes to handling rogue mayors like Rob Ford (or, to a lesser degree, Larry O'Brien--interestingly, I *wouldn't* include Mel Lastman in that pantheon of rogues, since he knew a thing or two about team-building).  I mean, it may have taken a mushy-middler rather than a "true progressive" to take down O'Brien; but at least he was taken down.  Otherwise, you're inadvertently "normalizing" a rogue who doesn't merit normalization.

Ah yes, Winnipeg is a good example too. Even though amalgamation happened there in the 1970s, and it was an NDP Premier who did it! That amalgamation put more than half of Manitoba's population in the city of Winnipeg.

Not including the City of London (a foul nest of corruption with its own dubious rules and a population of less than eight thousand), there are thirty two London Boroughs. Though London is bigger than Toronto. Average population per borough is about 255,000. Largest borough (Croydon) has about 360,000 people, smallest (Kensington & Chelsea) about 158,000.

So, you'd probably keep East York and York as are/were (they'd be a touch on the small side, but not by so much as to be a problem), and presumably Etobicoke as well. Old Toronto, North York and Scarborough would all be too large, so you'd divide them into three or two each.

That's if the objective is for boroughs that are large enough to carry some political weight (and not just be glorified community councils) but not so large as to threaten the primacy of the city government.

If Toronto did adopt a borough system, they'd likely follow the "community councils" they have now. But I prefer your plan better. Not sure how I'd divide up North York, Old Toronto and Scarborough though. Sounds like an interesting project to undertake (I have long thought about an Ottawa Borough plan though, if anyone is interested)

[Hatman 🍁]

Eh, if anything, they should look into further expanding the city of Toronto's boundaries to include the entirety of the metro area.

One good way to ensure a progressive mayor is never elected again.

[Hatman 🍁]

The amalgamation of 1995 was actually preceded by a report that had been commissioned by the Rae government, which recommended keeping the distinct cities within Metro Toronto but expanding the boundaries of Metro itself into the suburbs. This would likely have been better than what actually happened both for local autonomy and for overall regional planning. But Harris had this preoccupation with reducing the number of politicians.

That would've been interesting. I wonder, if that happened, would the chair of the Metro council ever be directly elected? I know that happened in Ottawa with the RMOC Chair, and other regional municipalities that still exist are beginning to elect their chairs directly by the voters.

[Hatman 🍁]

New Forum poll
Ford: 35 (+7)
Chow: 32 (-4)
Tory: 19 (-3)
Stintz: 3 (-2)
Thompson: 2 (new)
Soknacki: 2 (n/c)



I guess some conservatives are holding their noses and backing Rob Ford to stop Chow. Disgusting.


In other news, Jim Watson has finally filed his papers to run for re-election as mayor of Ottawa.

[Hatman 🍁]

I expect that eventually the Anti-Ford voters will coalesce behind Chow, and anyone left who is anti-Chow and can stomach voting Ford will back Ford, leaving a small rump of people who don't like either. I'm afraid Ford might be able to hit 40%, at least if you think his approvals can translate into votes. 

[Hatman 🍁]

Today's Toronto mayoral debate (yes, already!) has been a farce.

[Hatman 🍁]

I think you have too much faith in the intelligence of the voter. I don't think most voters realize how powerless the mayor truly is.

[Hatman 🍁]

Banned forumite "Teddy" announced on Twitter he is running for mayor.  Hasn't registered yet, but I believe it, as he's run for political office twice before.

[Hatman 🍁]

Now that I think of it, it may be an April Fools joke.

[Hatman 🍁]

It is an April Fools joke