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

[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.

[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%

[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%.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[DL]

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.

[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.

[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)

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But I would be one of those people to suggest that de-amalgamation would be a solution to this mess.

Yes, but that's because you have no interest in urban politics in a non-electoral sense.

[MaxQue]

But I would be one of those people to suggest that de-amalgamation would be a solution to this mess.

Yes, but that's because you have no interest in urban politics in a non-electoral sense.

Neither do people in the suburbs.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The point is that it makes sense from a practical perspective - overwhelming sense - to have some form of city-wide government.

[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.

[King of Kensington]

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.

[King of Kensington]

It seems John Tory didn't really get much of a bump from his announcement.  He seems to be very much of an elite obsession.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

But I would be one of those people to suggest that de-amalgamation would be a solution to this mess.

Yes, but that's because you have no interest in urban politics in a non-electoral sense.

Hatman isn't wrong to be wary of amalgamation. It leads to inequitable and disastrous zoning policy as often as it leads to improvement. Cohesion is no remedy for the ailments of urban mismanagement.

Also, I get the sense that posters here are drastically misinterpreting the polling information. There is a huge pool of Chow-Ford swing voters: low income, visible minorities really like Ford but should also be prone to many of Chow's appeals. The problem is that Chow's ability to make more populist leftist appeals should be undercut by her need to edge out Tory.

[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.

[DL]

What is a "populist" and is it up to "Ford nation" to define it?

[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.)

[lilTommy]

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.

I definitely feel boroughs would do wonders for Toronto, and even Hamilton and Ottawa possibly... as well as having specific "part-time" borough only Councillors, elected borough wide perhaps as opposed to individual single-member wards. Anywho... i don't see anyone campaigning on that, shame.

It looks like Olivia has learned, and taken notes from Nenshi and Millers on building cross-party teams. Apparently Olivia Chows rally in North York (which i missed!) was packed and diverse.

[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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.)

This is exactly right.