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

[adma]

You could always give them informal geographical names. They're logical enough to do that without pain.

Actually, they already have geographical names, based upon the (90s-model) federal/provincial ridings they're created from (two per riding)

[adma]

Endorsements have started
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/former-mlse-president-i-know-who-can-start-rebuilding-toronto/article16384702/?service=mobile
Odd it's a businessman who is supporting Chow!

Well, not so much that it's a businessman, but that it's a *sports-based* businessman--usually, they're not the sort to endorse the left-of-centre.

[adma]

I doubt it's his floor, because things haven't completely sunk in when it comes to the "Ford moderates"--and remember that "approval" doesn't necessarily mean a "firm and solid voting intention" kind of approval.  IOW sooner or later, the snarl of piled-up debris has got to catch fire.

And of course, the old "it's a Forum Research poll, remember" caveat.

That said, at this point, I'm not seeing--yet--the bottom sinking below 15%

[adma]

But let's also remember that recent Forum Research polling also showed "approval ratings" for other prospective candidates (Chow, Tory, etc) that were comparable--thus blowing the lid off the "voting intention" thing which, for eons, armchair pundits have been misguidedly reading into Ford's 40ish-range "approval" stability.

*And*, the mayoral campaign's only really just gotten started, and the heart of it all is still months away.

Let things sink in.  I still contend that Ford support *still* isn't as monolithic as it appears--it only *seems* that steroid-pumped oxygen-hogging way through his constant state of campaign mode--and a lot of what appears unswingable might, in fact, not be so.  All the more so if (inevitably) we're to be confronted with further bozo eruptions, not to mention the possibility/likelihood of arrest and/or death.

Remember that a good deal of that apparently "immoderate/unmoving" Ford support isn't the sort which votes "Ford slate" all the way--there's plenty of Chretien/Martin Liberals, even Layton Dippers among the bunch, and it's also quite unlikely that they'll be heeding Rob & Doug's instructions to defeat 80-90% of Council on behalf of Ford-slaters.  They voted Ford because the alternatives were weak--and they're still lending their support because the alternatives haven't made enough headway (and technically *can't*, until the closing stretch)

But yes, it is interesting that the clue to Ford's "defeatability" is thus far coming more from the Chow/Soknacki camp than the Tory/Stintz camp, even though the latter is better positioned superficially to raid the right-of-centre vote...

[adma]

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.

[adma]

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.

And a lot of casual observers would contend that that's exactly the kind of "something huge" he's careening into...deliberately?  Like some kind of electoral suicide-bomber?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But, once again, even the "decideds" aren't necessarily so "decided" as they appear or even realize.  Especially given that their "decidedness" is founded upon some pretty flimsy coordinates.

However, this much is for certain: those most prone to declaring an outsize Ford core to be "immovable" are, individually speaking, least strategically prepared to defeat him (often because they're prone to espousing chicken solutions like a unite-the-opposition pile-up, or deamalgamation, etc)

[adma]

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.)

[adma]

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.

[adma]

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. 

Methinks that's only likely if every viable non-Ford candidate save Chow actually drops out, as opposed to mere fading down the stretch.  I mean, I agree that Chow has her own ceiling and stigma; but I can just as well see those who can't fathom voting for a "tax & spend socialist" yet not to the degree that they'd (re?)endorse a lying rogue of a crackhead, either "parking their vote" with one of the others or not voting at all.  And even if it's a lost cause and it's Advantage Chow, they can rest comfortably in the possibility/probability that she won't *rule* like the reckless tax & spend socialist she's portrayed as being, i.e. even if she wins, she'll be "kept straight"...

[adma]

Depends on which kind of voter.  And again: this isn't about Ford vs "progressivism", this is about Ford vs sanity.

[adma]

Amazing that John Tory could actually win an election.

Actually, not so amazing, if one considers how well Tory's 2003 mayoral campaign was received; that Miller won was more the post-Lastman luck of the draw than a measure of John Tory's failure.

In a way, municipal leadership might have been his true comfort zone all along--unfortunately campflauged by the fact that he *didn't* win in 2003, and then proceeded to blow it as provincial PC leader...

[adma]

Ummm how are the two Conservative candidates winning 75% of the vote??

Because there is no Liberal candidate.  (And John Tory's moderate enough for a lot of Liberal-type voters to tolerate.)

[adma]

I find it utterly bizarre that the parts of Toronto which managed to elect a Liberal MP in 2011, with the exception of Centre, all voted for Doug Ford.  Your suburban Liberals are weird, Ontario

Also don't forget St. Paul's.

[adma]

Yeah, Ford Nation is the inverse of Pim Fortuyn framing far-right politics as a glam hipster thing...

[adma]

Source for such maps

https://bigcitypolitics.cartodb.com/

[adma]

Geography's probably the best argument against "megacitying" Greater Vancouver--plus the fact that BC doesn't have the finely-defined "county systems" that the eastern provinces have...

[adma]

A GVRD Megacity would be awkward - but look at how ridiculous amalgamated Ottawa is. 

Yet Ottawa still has a default "plausibility", i.e. the former county/region relabelling itself as "city".

The truer GVRD equivalent would be if Toronto annexed the 905burbia which surrounds it.

[adma]

Why? There is such a thing as the Metro Vancouver Regional District, which is like a county.

Psychologically, it's still more of a "GTA-type" Metro than a "Metro Toronto-type" Metro, i.e. more of a bureaucratic than electoral entity...