Toronto after the election, continued

111 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cueball Cueball's picture

If you read that previous post in the context of previous discussions I have had about the Pantalone campaign with Stockholm you will see that he more or less blames defeat on Pantalone because he was a weak candidate. In that context I am asking if Jack brought embarrassment to the party by endorsing a weak (sic) candidate.

As well, Stockholm asserts that the party (and Jack) was fully behind their man. In that case Hebert's comments have at least some merit, since defeat is shared by Pantalone and the party together, and Jack as his sponsor. The organization was either incapable of running a strong campaign, or incapable of producing a talented candidate from within its ranks. Or both! So you are right, we can not have this argument both ways, your observation is correct, this is why I am asking Stockholm these questions.

Polunatic2

Looking back in retrospect, I don't think the "left establishment" ever thought we would retake the mayor's seat in this election. Perhaps they did until Adam G pulled out leaving "second choice" Joe as the default candidate that few seemed to get very excited about. In this, David Miller (and others) may have demonstrated an error in judgement if he backed someone who just wasn't ready. How they knew it was a "lost cause", I'm not sure. Could be ongoing internal polling in the wake of the civic & TTC strikes. Could be a lack of confidence in the candidate. Could be difficulty in raising money and what looked the intention of running a strong advertising campaign (and symbolic ground campaign). Could it be the inability to build a "left-centre" coalition? Or the breakdown of candidates along party lines? Could be the prioritization of local councillor campaigns (not a bad thing in and of itself obviously) over the mayor's race. Could be that "the left" had its turn in power and that no strategy would have succeeded? More likely, a combo of all of the above and anything else I've left out. 

The first time I walked into the campaign office, I got the feeling that something just wasn't right. It was Thanksgiving weekend and it was very quiet. I don't doubt that quite a few people helped the campaign or that those in the office worked their asses off. They did. But it was nothing like I remember with Miller's first campaign where there was a lot of electricity in the air, hope and constant bustle. 

'Some of the signals I observed included people waiting a long time to get their law signs. Because I have a car, that's mainly how I helped out. There were still signs leftover at the end even as I had offered to put a couple dozen more on public boulevards on the final weekend but was told that they had more requests than signs and had crews coming in. Some volunteers had a challenge getting clicked in. There were no satellite offices in the suburbs. Some councillors campaign offices served as sign depots for Joe but not sure how many. There were no inside scrutineers on e-day. There were probably twice as many people at Miller's first victory party than at Joe's shared party with local candidate and victor Mike Layton. It felt more like a ward party than a city-wide campaign party (wake?). The party was about 95% white folks which may speak to some significant outreach weaknesses. 

However, publicly raising doubts in the course of a campaign is wrong in my view so I just observed, helped out where I could and didn't say anything. In fact I still held out some hope that due to our quirky voting system, Miller's base and local labour/NDP "machines", that Joe could win. I was wrong and can add another notch to the Wishful Thinking Society list of unwinnable campaigns I've worked on.

But where we (Joe voters) were right was in sticking with Joe until the end and not succumbing to Liberal manipulations to position themselves as the "strategic choice" as an antedote to Ford's right wing campaign. Smitherman had nothing to offer progressives and demanded that people sell off a bit of their souls in supporting some of the despicable components of his platform. Whether Joe would have done any better in a head to head race against Ford is speculative. All Smitherman did was to legitimize many of Harris/Flaherty/Harper/Ford planks to cut taxes, services and continue the race to bottom for working people. 

Olly

Bookish Agrarian: best post I've read. That's exactly what happened I think. Unfortunately everyone goes around blaming the media, other candidates, etc, rather than really learn some lessons.

Cueball: I agree with you that the NDP didn't come to bat for Pantalone (or the union members that largely make it up). The reason is that Joe was always a third or fourth tier candidate for them. No one, at any point, thought he could win. Rememeber when Giambrone was the great hope of the left? Then he flamed himself out. Pants was in the race, but rather than coalesce around him everyone scrambled to try to find an alternative candidate that could win. Shelley Carroll, please run, please? But the writing was on the wall that David Miller's agenda was going into the tank, and none of the first tier candidates were willing to lose their jobs to take a run at mission impossible. So Joe was left as the de facto choice. Unions and the NDP never thought he could win anyway (and Ford was now leading the race), so it made strategic sense for them to focus on council races to put together enough opposition to Ford to thwart his agenda. That's my read on things anyway.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I totally agree that the campaign was pretty much a disaster organizationally. I don't know where that came from precisely. There didn't seem to be any experienced organizers in the middle management of the affair, and the campaign got off to a bumpy start because everyone was afraid to commit or so it seemed.

But, what I resent is the implication that there is something essentially weak about Pantalone that could not have been overcome by proper messaging, and more importantly solid work on the ground to build momentum. The campaign seemed to be about a month behind. The web site I see today is the one that should have been up a month ago, or even two months ago. But Pantalone himself was actually quite a good candidate in many ways and had ample assets that stood in stark contrast to the competition, neither of who were stellar.

Just on face value Pantalone was superior to either Ford or Smitherman, when all candidates are considered as complete packages. Surely Smitherman is a smooth talker, but scandal follows him like the plague, Ford can barely construct a complex sentence. The candidate was not inferior, but I think the messaging used to sell the candidate was wrong for the candidate in this particular race -- it was overall to much of an incumbents campaign at the start, and Pantalone only really seemed to start scoring well in debates toward the end of the campaign when he took the gloves off.

But, to repeat the most important problem was the attrocious organization of the ground campaign.

Olly

Ha, Polunatic2. We had almost the exact same analysis...

Olly

One of Miller's biggest mistakes was putting any faith into Giambrone. Any good leader needs succession plan. Giambrone was the plan, and he wasn't up for it. No one else was groomed for the position.

remind remind's picture

Acknowleging  Stock in anyway shape or form, about this topic, at least, is probably not a wise debating tactic, Cue. He has been completely inconsistent from the get go. But of course that is not unusual. Doing so lessens your position and gives validity to his.

Watching this from afar, I personally only viewed 3 or 4 consistent voices.  The lack in consistency of opinion/consensus of course could easily be translated to the larger TO community, which is what I did. To me it means the left in TO, and by this I mean the true left, were the fuse leading to their own destruction.

The vitriol displayed here to Miller, last year, shows such a lack of emotional/political maturity that it was breathtaking.

Once you destroy a framework of the friends who really are the closest to you as possible, in this current political climate, by immature reasoning and understanding, as well as listening to the whispers of provocatuers, there is no coherent leadership, or voice. Hence inconsistent messaging and cooperation on the left. Which of course is what the corporate loving provocatuers want, and they are masters at the use of deception and division. The left just keeps on underestimating them, and eating their own friends, thinking they are smarter than those 'rednecks' on the right.

Heads up, we aren't.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Olly wrote:

Bookish Agrarian: best post I've read. That's exactly what happened I think. Unfortunately everyone goes around blaming the media, other candidates, etc, rather than really learn some lessons.

Cueball: I agree with you that the NDP didn't come to bat for Pantalone (or the union members that largely make it up). The reason is that Joe was always a third or fourth tier candidate for them. No one, at any point, thought he could win. Rememeber when Giambrone was the great hope of the left? Then he flamed himself out. Pants was in the race, but rather than coalesce around him everyone scrambled to try to find an alternative candidate that could win. Shelley Carroll, please run, please? But the writing was on the wall that David Miller's agenda was going into the tank, and none of the first tier candidates were willing to lose their jobs to take a run at mission impossible. So Joe was left as the de facto choice. Unions and the NDP never thought he could win anyway (and Ford was now leading the race), so it made strategic sense for them to focus on council races to put together enough opposition to Ford to thwart his agenda. That's my read on things anyway.

You are entirely right about the council races. That is the heart of the complaint. Regardless there was basically no evident co-operation between the councillors the NDP were supporting and the Pantalone campaign. What I can't get my head around is that Vaughan had no competition in ward 20, and the NDP did not show up at all. And Vaughan isn't even in the NDP.

They hung him out to dry. And as Pantlone evidenced, at the end of the day, it was far more important for the left to make a stand and stick it out, than wither up when things aren't all going your way.

 

Polunatic2

Quote:
No one else was groomed for the position.

That Joe served for 30 years on council and several years as deputy mayor yet was not the "annointed one" is telling. He was eminently qualified. Was he the "perfect" candidate? Obviously not but once it was clear he was "our candidate", all stops should have been pulled to get him elected. There's obviously a story as to why Miller didn't advise Adam G to back Pantalone and "wait his turn". Maybe someone will write the book one day. 

remind remind's picture

To me, it states by way of "telling", that there was ageism at work, as well as his not being a 'hipster' like Adam G. Plus of course the left's usual a priori self-destructing.

Lazy Tony

I voted for Joe, and I encouraged other people to do so - but privately I was never very excited about doing so.  There were obviously a whole bunch of factors at play in this election, but I think my general apathy for his run was based on a few things:

First of all, I think he kind of antagonized a lot of the people who were supportive and excited about Adam (pre-scandal) by deciding to run against him.  Presumably he was hurt not to have been the 'anointed one', and in retrospect maybe we would have been better off if he had been, but it just started his whole campaign with a 'sour grapes' impression.

The other big thing with Joe, for me anyway, was that he had served for 30 years yet had very few accomplishments with resonance to point to in all that time on council.  The lit from a distinguished council veteran should be a scorecard of recognizable success stories, and while he had a few good ones his overall record didn't come across as very impressive to me. 

Add to that the fact that in the recent past he had garnered a bit of a reputation as an authoritarian (shutting down Ossington, trying to block a cafe's liquor license on Harbord) and his undying support for the Front Street Extension.  He just didn't seem like a modern city-builder.

I think you've already dissected his campaign pretty thoroughly, but I don't know if anyone has mentioned how slow he was to ramp up.  It seems like he didn't start campaigning in earnest until after Labour day.  I'm sure the received wisdom was that people don't pay much attention until then, but I don't think that's true anymore, and while he was taking it slow Rob Ford was getting a ton of media attention and building name recognition.

So, that's why I wasn't very excited about his campaign and why I donated my time and money on a council race instead.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

remind wrote:

Hey cue, how come Chantal Hebert did not know that the NDP were  not supporting Pantalone, as you claim?

 

If Jack Layton walked on water, Chantal Hébert would write and article about how he can't swim.

Stockholm

As it turns out - its a good thing that a lot of people in the NDP focused on those council races rather than "throwing good money after bad" on the mayoralty. There were some very close calls at the council level and if a few narrow wins by left of centre candidates had instead been narrow losses - Ford would have a big leg up in implementing his agenda.

I think Lazy Tony makes a lot of other very valid points as to why so many people felt quite lukewarm about Pantalone from the get-go. Its a bit silly to say "Pantalone wasn't the problem, he was a great candidate! He just had terrible organization, not enough money, terrible strategy and a lack of volunteers". A big part of being a "good candidate" is being able to pick people who will organize a great campaign, motivate people to volunteer, raise money and developping a winning strategy. If none of those things materialize - at some point that candidate him or herself has to take some responsibility.

Kloch

Stockholm wrote:

As it turns out - its a good thing that a lot of people in the NDP focused on those council races rather than "throwing good money after bad" on the mayoralty. There were some very close calls at the council level and if a few narrow wins by left of centre candidates had instead been narrow losses - Ford would have a big leg up in implementing his agenda.

I think Lazy Tony makes a lot of other very valid points as to why so many people felt quite lukewarm about Pantalone from the get-go. Its a bit silly to say "Pantalone wasn't the problem, he was a great candidate! He just had terrible organization, not enough money, terrible strategy and a lack of volunteers". A big part of being a "good candidate" is being able to pick people who will organize a great campaign, motivate people to volunteer, raise money and developping a winning strategy. If none of those things materialize - at some point that candidate him or herself has to take some responsibility.

A few weeks ago you were reminding me that he had hired John Laschinger (whom Giambrone had perviously hired) and described him as one of the best in the business.  Now his problem is that he didn't hire smart people.

Stockholm

Maybe Laschinger's heart wasn't in this race? Who knows, I'm sure there are inside stories to be told.

Kloch

On this point, we agree.

kitest

i have 3 primary thoughts on monday's election and one sidenote

1-while miller was effective at securing a number of new powers for the city of toronto via the city of toronto act, with rob ford in power, i am rather grateful that the province was sensible and prudent in not granting other powers that mayors/cities have in other jursdictions (i.e. Chicago, London etc).

2-i respect adam vaughan and it's time for progressive (and thoughtful) councillors to rally around him. 2014 should be his time to shine.

3- i agree with those pundits that have either explicitly or implicitly noted that this ford win was a long time coming following amalgamation. it's time for the city building paradigm to look at the city in its entirety -i know spacing mag, progressive voices have turned their attention and interests to see Scarborough, Etobicoke, North York etc recently; however some fundamental reconceptualizing of 'who is your city' might need to be done

sidenote- while happy for Kristyn Wong-Tam in Ward 27, Joel Dick's low support in that race would suggest that team was working the NDP lists and all the NDP support in the riding went to her. I was so disappointed for this talented (and proudly NDP) candidate.

farnival

RevolutionPlease wrote:

And if POC did vote for Ford, I'd rather not get into why but say it's not only for his economic message.  eta:  like many of the white voters.

 

i'll say it, and i'm not going to apologise for it like Glen Murray was forced to.  It's homophobia.  If you are a practising religious person that belongs to any sect using the Bible or the Koran, you simply couldn't vote for a gay person in my observation/opinion.  I think the technical term that would apply in this case is "elephant in the room".

I voted Pantalone because Smitherman and Ford were awful candidates and he was pitching a Toronto i know, like, and wanted to continue. I know alot of "POC's" in my end of town had Ford signs on thier businesses and lawns.  This is clearly against their own interests so there has to be another reason, and I'm pretty sure it's the one i just stated.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Stockholm wrote:

As it turns out - its a good thing that a lot of people in the NDP focused on those council races rather than "throwing good money after bad" on the mayoralty. There were some very close calls at the council level and if a few narrow wins by left of centre candidates had instead been narrow losses - Ford would have a big leg up in implementing his agenda.

I think Lazy Tony makes a lot of other very valid points as to why so many people felt quite lukewarm about Pantalone from the get-go. Its a bit silly to say "Pantalone wasn't the problem, he was a great candidate! He just had terrible organization, not enough money, terrible strategy and a lack of volunteers". A big part of being a "good candidate" is being able to pick people who will organize a great campaign, motivate people to volunteer, raise money and developping a winning strategy. If none of those things materialize - at some point that candidate him or herself has to take some responsibility.

Must be picking the wrong people. How Miller overcame the Laschinger deficit is hard to explain. Maybe that is because Miller was really John F. Kennedy reincarnated.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Lazy Tony wrote:

I voted for Joe, and I encouraged other people to do so - but privately I was never very excited about doing so.  There were obviously a whole bunch of factors at play in this election, but I think my general apathy for his run was based on a few things:

First of all, I think he kind of antagonized a lot of the people who were supportive and excited about Adam (pre-scandal) by deciding to run against him.  Presumably he was hurt not to have been the 'anointed one', and in retrospect maybe we would have been better off if he had been, but it just started his whole campaign with a 'sour grapes' impression.

Hurt? Maybe he just said: "fuck this shit, I am tired of being run over by the party aparatus: we will see who can do better." Hardly a big deal since there was plenty of time for one or the other to drop out before election day and solidify support around a single candidate. Perhaps, at the very least, he though he could shape the campaign, and negotiate concessions from the NDP extablishment.

In the final analysis Pantalone was clearly a superior candidate than Giambrone, who not only got himself involved in some silly shenanigans with his groupies... sorry I mean interns... but then wilted at the first sign of controversy. Ford, has done 10 times worse things, even being arrested for DUI and marijuana possession, but he had the fortitude to stick it out.

 

Doug

Cueball wrote:

Actually having more than half the population turn out to vote is someting of a victory, imo. It certainly speaks to the idea that people are attempting to engage and take control of the process. That is what I take from Ford's numbers. Also, seeing the new immigrant communities becoming more involved is pretty exciting.

 

Or maybe not.

 

While strong support for Mr. Ford among older Torontonians and non-union members of the working and lower-middle classes was anticipated by pollsters – “They’re the guys on the winning side in upper North America,” said Ekos Research president Frank Graves – the strong backing he received from immigrants is imperfectly understood.

They were 20 per cent more likely to vote for Mr. Ford than Canadian-born residents of the city. “It was a surprise to me,” Mr. Graves said.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I am sorry that you feel hurt that they do not feel that their interests coincide with your own. More focus on why the progressive segment of immigrant populations is silent during elections might bear fruit. It's a peculiar thing. The thing about partisan politics. In particular, it is consistentl that when NDP supporters find out that they have been "betrayed" by those they like to believe they represent they goes on the defensive and blame them for their loss, as opposed to listening to the message that is being conveyed.

remind remind's picture

Who is saying that the, the progressive segment, were not engaged, and were silent, Cue? Do you have numbers or other reference material showing this? Or is this personal speculation?

Moreover, if new immigrants vote for reasons of bigotry, as opposed to what is best for the community, their being engaged is a regressive social action, not a progressive one.

A political

Stockholm wrote:

As it turns out - its a good thing that a lot of people in the NDP focused on those council races rather than "throwing good money after bad" on the mayoralty. There were some very close calls at the council level and if a few narrow wins by left of centre candidates had instead been narrow losses - Ford would have a big leg up in implementing his agenda.

I think Lazy Tony makes a lot of other very valid points as to why so many people felt quite lukewarm about Pantalone from the get-go. Its a bit silly to say "Pantalone wasn't the problem, he was a great candidate! He just had terrible organization, not enough money, terrible strategy and a lack of volunteers". A big part of being a "good candidate" is being able to pick people who will organize a great campaign, motivate people to volunteer, raise money and developping a winning strategy. If none of those things materialize - at some point that candidate him or herself has to take some responsibility.

[/quote

deleted post i\0thers made the poiny 

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

I am. The other angle would be to say something along the lines that these communities are essentially more conservative. I don't think so. I think the progressive vote in these communities, has a hard time getting traction with their constituency because the left, and the unions have failed to deliver. The fact is that these communities are among those that for the most part are on the outside looking in. It is a real mistake to underestimate the power of the local business leaders among them, and the fact that they can easily pitch privitization as a means of opening up the coffers at city hall for more equitable distribution.

remind remind's picture

nm you back edited and I am getting grumpy, 'night

Cueball Cueball's picture

The fact that the unions and the left have failed to deliver has everything to do with why progressive voices are silent in many immigrant communities. Just taking broad sideswipes at immigrants as enraged backward reactionaries does absolutely nothing except reinforce racist stereotypes.

We take as our standpoint that all communities of people have regressive and progressive elements. We know this to be true even if we are only hearing from one element among them. I don't see how we could say otherwise and still call ourselves progressive really. Then we have to examine how it is that right wing immigrant voters are mobilizing in the cause of the right, and ask ourselves why. The answers are very obvious, just by looking at the right wing rhetoric around the "socialist elite" and privileged unions to see that this message is being conveyed and it is evidently bearing fruit.

I think that the reason that it is resonating strongly in these communities is because those on the left in those communities are demoralized by years of promises that do not bear fruit.This is not to say that this is necessarily the fault of the left and the unions. Indeed a major reason that the uniionize work force is still disproportionately white is directly linked to cutbacks that prevent new workers from being introduced to the system, while the seniority system protects those who are already entrenched.

But blame is not the issue, when the evident reality is that the unions largely act to protect the right of white workers, since that is the main body of people who are enlisted in the unionized workforce. Therefore the unions and the left appear to be part of the white establishment, just as much as the corporate managers appear to be the white establishment.

This holds, regardless of whether it is intentional or not.

I think the left and the unions must agressively confront the realities of this issue with an open mind to new inclusive solutions, and the first order of business is to listen to the message that is being conveyed. This is particularly hard to do within the union movement, beyond lip-service, because first and foremost any Union must protect the rights of its existing membership, not the theoretical membership of potential members.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

farnival said it and he was spot on to what I was alluding to and you avoided it Cueball.  Perhaps, it's better not discussed here but I've been hearing about a lot of homophobia driving Ford's vote.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Cueball wrote:

The fact that the unions and the left have failed to deliver has everything to do with why progressive voices are silent in many immigrant communities. Just taking broad sideswipes at immigrants as enraged backward reactionaries does absolutely nothing except reinforce racist stereotypes.

We take as our standpoint that all communities of people have regressive and progressive elements. We know this to be true even if we are only hearing from one element among them. I don't see how we could say otherwise and still call ourselves progressive really. Then we have to examine how it is that right wing immigrant voters are mobilizing in the cause of the right, and ask ourselves why. The answers are very obvious, just by looking at the right wing rhetoric around the "socialist elite" and privileged unions to see that this message is being conveyed and it is evidently bearing fruit.

I think that the reason that it is resonating strongly in these communities is because those on the left in those communities are demoralized by years of promises that do not bear fruit.This is not to say that this is necessarily the fault of the left and the unions. Indeed a major reason that the uniionize work force is still disproportionately white is directly linked to cutbacks that prevent new workers from being introduced to the system, while the seniority system protects those who are already entrenched.

But blame is not the issue, when the evident reality is that the unions largely act to protect the right of white workers, since that is the main body of people who are enlisted in the unionized workforce. Therefore the unions and the left appear to be part of the white establishment, just as much as the corporate managers appear to be the white establishment.

This holds, regardless of whether it is intentional or not.

I think the left and the unions must agressively confront the realities of this issue with an open mind to new inclusive solutions, and the first order of business is to listen to the message that is being conveyed. This is particularly hard to do within the union movement, beyond lip-service, because first and foremost any Union must protect the rights of its existing membership, not the theoretical membership of potential members.

 

Wow, cross-posted with my other but this just stopped me in my tracks.  Well written Cueball.

Cueball Cueball's picture

RevolutionPlease wrote:

farnival said it and he was spot on to what I was alluding to and you avoided it Cueball.  Perhaps, it's better not discussed here but I've been hearing about a lot of homophobia driving Ford's vote.

Pantalone is gay?

Sineed

Cueball wrote:

Pantalone is gay?

ROFL!

Though I dropped by the thread to share this, an interview with Rob Ford on "As it happens."  

If you have Facebook, spread it around.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHJGR4i7fhw

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

No but Ford share's the attitude openly.

takeitslowly

I also want to add that just because someone belongs to a union and they vote for leftist candidates, that do not necessarily mean they dont have racist feelings. I get the sense that many union members feel threatened by private sector workers , and it is hard ot build alliance when you feel threatened by the "outsiders" who also happen to be made up of many non white "immigrants."

 

So much conflicts can be resolved if people have more empathy and get out of their comfort zone and talk to people unlike themselves.

 

I feel that even in a city as diverse as Toronto, people often socialize among themselves and there is a sense of segregation among different groups based on many different criterias.

 

Most people are polite and smile , but they don't really do anything more to reach out, and when their sense of security is threatened, they shut down entirely and just get pissed off at "the other" and vote for a guy like Rob Ford.

 

Its really sad...Apparently, only the rich and the elites get to be angry and pissed off during a recession.

Cueball Cueball's picture

You are definitely on to something there. Ford is excelent at that. So is Pantalone, but I don't think his campaign was geared up enough to take advantage of his ability in this area.

Aristotleded24

Cueball wrote:
Maybe he just said: "fuck this shit, I am tired of being run over by the party aparatus: we will see who can do better." Hardly a big deal since there was plenty of time for one or the other to drop out before election day and solidify support around a single candidate. Perhaps, at the very least, he though he could shape the campaign, and negotiate concessions from the NDP extablishment.

I have to wonder if in this new world of "change" that long-standing service to one's community is not something to be honoured any more, that it's actually a hinderance. Looking at the results in Toronto, or even here in Manitoba tonight, as a long-standing MP lost the race for mayor and every single incumbent in Brandon who was challenged ended up defeated. Bookish Agrarian is raising the theme of broken trust, so maybe long-standing incumbency is too easily tied with being part of the "old boy's club." Maybe if the trust can be rebuilt, then long-standing service, along with a balance of new faces and new ideas, will be considered assets.

Cueball Cueball's picture

My experience was that he was very well liked by youth, Indeed, if we consider that youth are more tech aware than older folks, it was kind of odd that Pantalone had the largest turn out for his Facebook page, given the fact that he was somethng of a career socialist technocrat heading into his twilight years, and not at all like the swinging Slitherman.

adma

Here's what the Left should do to Ford

Farmpunk

I've followed the various TO Mayor threads from the beginning and it's been very informative.

I was involved in the local, small\medium town, races in my area.  A LOT of incumbent mayors went down in a wide area around London.  I think there's a general dissatisfaction with the way pols conducted themselves during the recession, and municipal pols were simply the first targets in Ontario where voters had a chance to express this frustration.  Merited?  Debatable.

Ford, as BA and other have suggested, was able to organize his campaign around this reality.

My local election notes also point to a emphasis from the business communities on pushing forward electable candidates with a "bringing the private sector into politics" angle.  The business candidates have a built in organization via employees and affiliated businesses that creates a strong base.  There's a general nervousness out here in the hinterland about diminishing economic opportunities, and voters could perhaps find this appealing in uncertain times. 

Sineed

Ford's cost-cutting promises resonated with the business community in Toronto, winning him an endorsement from the National Post.  That he was perceived as the most business-friendly candidate had a lot more to do with his victory, IMO, than homophobia.

It's unquestionable that Ford's campaign was simple-minded and based on obfuscation and lies.  It was also the most consistent campaign.  Unlike Smitherman, Ford never wavered, repeating the same lies over and over.

nussy

adma wrote:
The left have been doing this to Ford for a long time. And people just got madder and madder. 

 

Here's what the Left should do to Ford

Olly

Ford's cost-cutting promises resonated with the business community in Toronto, winning him an endorsement from the National Post.  That he was perceived as the most business-friendly candidate had a lot more to do with his victory, IMO, than homophobia.

 

I totally disagree with this. He wasn't the candidate of business. Smitherman was. I'm sure we'll see that when Smitherman releases his donors list. Ford managed to get the Post and Sun to endorse him because they'll endorse anyone that isn't a Liberal. But serious business people are scare shitless of a Ford mayoralty. The reality is, Ford was elected largely by low and middle income Torontonians. The message there is that with the on-the-ground recession still in full force and many people still struggling, people are sick and tired of spending thousands of dollars on going-away parties for departing councillors, bike lanes that most people didn't really want in the first place, construction projects that never get finished, bunny suits for councillors, etc, etc.

nussy

I agree.....Smitherman was the establishment candidate........Most people were anti establishment. Left or right. 

Ford looks like he is calming down lets see who he chooses for the plum jobs. 

Aristotleded24

Farmpunk wrote:
I think there's a general dissatisfaction with the way pols conducted themselves during the recession, and municipal pols were simply the first targets in Ontario where voters had a chance to express this frustration.  Merited?  Debatable.

This tendancy is evident one province over from you. In Winnipeg, several NDP-backed councillors failed to take seats that are traditionally safe for the NDP. In Brandon, every incumbent who was challenged lost. In Dauphin, not only was the incumbent mayor thrown out, but former Mayor and MP Inky Mark lost as well.

Olly

Wow, talk about a city divided. Funny how the Smitherman vote vaguely resembles someone giving the finger. But shouldn't that be the other way around?

 

http://torontoist.com/2010/10/which_wards_voted_for_who_for_mayor.php

Stockholm

This long article in the Globe about how Smitherman blew it is quite an interesting read:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/city-votes/city-vot...

I was surprised to learn in the article that one of Smitherman's "strategists" was Bob Penner of Stratcom who used to poll for the NDP before they switched to Viewpoints and who also was a "key strategist" for Barbara Hall in 2003 (a lot of good that did) and that another "strategist" was Sean Hill who is in the NDP as well and used to work for Mihevc. It also mentions a plethorsa of big "L" Liberals and Tories in the campaign. It all sounds like an extreme case of "too many cooks spoil the broth"!! Enjoy.

bekayne

Sineed wrote:

Ford's cost-cutting promises resonated with the business community in Toronto, winning him an endorsement from the National Post.  

All Ford had to do to win an endorsement from the National Post was have a pulse

Cueball Cueball's picture

Stockholm wrote:

This long article in the Globe about how Smitherman blew it is quite an interesting read:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/city-votes/city-vot...

I was surprised to learn in the article that one of Smitherman's "strategists" was Bob Penner of Stratcom who used to poll for the NDP before they switched to Viewpoints and who also was a "key strategist" for Barbara Hall in 2003 (a lot of good that did) and that another "strategist" was Sean Hill who is in the NDP as well and used to work for Mihevc. It also mentions a plethorsa of big "L" Liberals and Tories in the campaign. It all sounds like an extreme case of "too many cooks spoil the broth"!! Enjoy.

I wasn't at all surprised by that. Indeed, these boys were doing everything they could to use their "left" connections to wring endorsements from the labour movement and left wing personalities. It looked like in the case of Mehevc it may have worked. Stratcom should be put on the left "no fly" list, and punished for their indiscretion IMO. Their organization is built on left wing causes and the union movement money, and they should definitely be cut off. If they are going to shill for the Goldman Sachs agenda, I don't see why they should be rewarded with future contracts.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Cueball wrote:

I am. The other angle would be to say something along the lines that these communities are essentially more conservative. I don't think so. I think the progressive vote in these communities, has a hard time getting traction with their constituency because the left, and the unions have failed to deliver. The fact is that these communities are among those that for the most part are on the outside looking in. It is a real mistake to underestimate the power of the local business leaders among them, and the fact that they can easily pitch privitization as a means of opening up the coffers at city hall for more equitable distribution.

Quote:
Many in the crowd look like they would be thrilled to get newly privatized jobs hauling garbage or maintaining buildings for half the wages currently paid to city workers. Some look like they can use any job and an easy and inexpensive way to get to one, the young families at their side making the need all the more pressing.

You can even see why, in this area so badly served by transit, the $60 car fee is so despised: it can feel like access to a car is an essential way to get to a low-paying job.

Pissed-off in Fordland

 

takeitslowly

on a completely different note, i did not notice Smitherman's husband during his concession speech..just his child..is he ashamed to be gay? there is a sense that he tried too hard to be like Ford he is almost ashamed of his family..

 

And character like Adam Giambrone feed into the cynicism, and the fact that Miller stood up for this guy was a mistake in character judgement. If you want to build a city and ask people to trust you with their money, you better choose someone who doesnt treat women like crap or have a trophy wife for a campaign , those things do not go well with the regular voters.

 

anyways, i agree that the car registration fee is a problem, anything a politican that can promise that will save a few bucks will be appealing to the poor and lower middle class because people are not listenning to anything else other than how they can save some extra money..

farnival

Cueball wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:

farnival said it and he was spot on to what I was alluding to and you avoided it Cueball.  Perhaps, it's better not discussed here but I've been hearing about a lot of homophobia driving Ford's vote.

Pantalone is gay?

nice zing cueball...heh,heh.  had i expanded further on that, there are two things that transcend socio-economic classes, and that is social conservatism and the "business" mentality.  

In my 25 years as a shop steward, i've only known a single handful of fellow members that ever voted NDP, and about the same who weren't socially conservative.  With the erosion of full time work through employers exploiting the "contract worker" loophole enabling them to get away with not paying benefits or overtime to part-time workers, more and more middle to low income folks are seeing themselves as "businesspeople" or "independent contractors" who think they have no use for unions in this dog-eat-dog world.  no free rides etc.etc.  they have drunk the neo-liberal koolaide and can't see through the rhetorical smokescreen the business sector has thrown up.  They now truly believe that union members are the "elite" because of their job security and higher wages and benefits, not getting for a second that they could have the same if they did the same work standing up to the corporate class and organising in their better interest.  The triumph of individualism through it's relentless promotion in the corporate owned media in our time has left everyone, as was said above, isolated and afraid and jealous of the "other".

The social conservative vote sunk Slitherman (in addition to his own self...how many Liberals/NDPers that he's pissed off with his style over the years didn't vote for him?), but i think  the "business" vote sunk Pantalone.  Pantalone was tagged early by the 7 years long meme war against Miller by the Post, Globe, and Star that the City was a mess, and it was all Miller's fault, and his campaign never got around it. He represented the percieved anti-business establishment at City Hall that just wants to raise your taxes and gouge you with a vehicle tax.

If the left and progressives need to learn anything about Ford winning the mayor's job in the supposedly most diverse city in North America, and Harper consistantly winning federally, is that Canada is a tolerant country, not an accepting nor progressive one.  It's right there if you want to see it.  Just take off the politically correct glasses and the civility the Left promotes and you'll find it staring you right in the face ready to give you a good wallop.

Pages

Topic locked