Strategic Voting by Trudeau in the 2015 Federal Election

286 posts / 0 new
Last post
terrytowel
Strategic Voting by Trudeau in the 2015 Federal Election

How long before Justin Trudeau starts saying

"You can vote to stop Harper. But you cannot stop him by voting NDP. That actually will not stop Harper"

It worked for Kathleen Wynne to get her majority by saying

"If you want to stop Hudak, you cannot vote NDP"

It worked for John Tory, winning the 2014 Toronto Mayor Race. With him saying

"The only way to stop Ford, is not voting for Olivia Chow"

Worked in Ontario, worked in Toronto. Why not go 3 for 3 and have it work across Canada?

Issues Pages: 
Regions: 
Pondering

He will never say it. It is the antithesis of his campaign strategy which is that Canadians deserve someone they can vote for as opposed to voting for the lessor of evils.

You will never hear the argument "vote for me to stop Harper" coming from Trudeau or the Liberal campaign.

Many are arguing that Trudeau lacks substance but substance is what will be required to beat Trudeau and so far I am seeing little evidence of it.

terrytowel

Pondering wrote:

You will never hear the argument "vote for me to stop Harper" coming from Trudeau or the Liberal campaign.

It worked for Martin to get a Minority Government in 2004

Pondering

terrytowel wrote:

Pondering wrote:

You will never hear the argument "vote for me to stop Harper" coming from Trudeau or the Liberal campaign.

It worked for Martin to get a Minority Government in 2004

And now Trudeau is the leader of the party so he makes the decisions and that isn't the route he is taking.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Trudeau is the face of the party.

Veteran Liberal MP's and brass make the decisions.

abnormal

alan smithee wrote:

Trudeau is the face of the party.

True.  He's a pretty face that speaks well and who is riding on his father's name.  Beyond that ...

Beyond that you can expect to see any number of people claiming that the only way to block Harper (or Mulcair) is to vote liberal.

Given how badly Olivia performed in Toronto, expect both.

Pondering

abnormal wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Trudeau is the face of the party.

True.  He's a pretty face that speaks well and who is riding on his father's name.  Beyond that ...

Beyond that you can expect to see any number of people claiming that the only way to block Harper (or Mulcair) is to vote liberal.

Given how badly Olivia performed in Toronto, expect both.

Go ahead, keep underestimating him, keep thinking you know what the Liberals will do. Mulcair will keep trying to play it safe until it's too late.

Stockholm

Michael Ignatieff said "You have only two choices - the red door or the blue door"...how did that work for him?

terrytowel

Stockholm wrote:

Michael Ignatieff said "You have only two choices - the red door or the blue door"...how did that work for him?

It was too vague for voters to understand.

If he used the words Kathleen Wynne said

"If you want to stop Hudak, you cannot vote NDP" Iggy would have been in much better shape.

It worked for Kathleen Wynne, it worked for John Tory. Why 3 for 3?

genstrike

Wouldn't it be a little strange for Trudeau to say that when the NDP has way more seats than him?  Not to mention that a quick glance at 308 shows that he's out ahead without even any strategic voting.  And that there are a lot of seats that are NDP/Conservative tossups where voting "strategically" for the Liberals is bad strategy.  And that there is also always the possibility of a coalition if the NDP does well.  And so on...

When it comes to strategic voting, it seems to me like there isn't a lot of consistency.  Most people advocate strategic voting only when their chosen party/candidate is in first or second place, and advocate voting their conscience when their chosen party/candidate is third or lower.  For example, I saw a lot of NDP supporters who vocally opposed strategic voting in federal elections vocally advocate that people vote strategically for Judy W-L in the recent Winnipeg election.  A lot of people advocated that those who support Olivia Chow in the recent Toronto election vote their conscience, but if she was running neck and neck with Doug Ford, you can bet there would have been a lot of talk from those same people about voting strategically to save Toronto from another four years of embarrassment.

That isn't to say that strategic voting is always a bad thing.  At different times, I've voted my conscience, voted strategically, and abstained from voting, and I try not to begrudge anyone for doing any of those, especially when all mainstream political parties are all more or less within a fairly narrow band of political thought and short on vision.

terrytowel

I should also remind people that strategic voting worked in the Toronto mayor race.

Ford only lost by 7%. If 65,000 voters switched from Tory to Chow, Doug Ford would be mayor today.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

genstrike wrote:

Wouldn't it be a little strange for Trudeau to say that when the NDP has way more seats than him?  Not to mention that a quick glance at 308 shows that he's out ahead without even any strategic voting.  And that there are a lot of seats that are NDP/Conservative tossups where voting "strategically" for the Liberals is bad strategy.  And that there is also always the possibility of a coalition if the NDP does well.  And so on...

When it comes to strategic voting, it seems to me like there isn't a lot of consistency.  Most people advocate strategic voting only when their chosen party/candidate is in first or second place, and advocate voting their conscience when their chosen party/candidate is third or lower.  For example, I saw a lot of NDP supporters who vocally opposed strategic voting in federal elections vocally advocate that people vote strategically for Judy W-L in the recent Winnipeg election.  A lot of people advocated that those who support Olivia Chow in the recent Toronto election vote their conscience, but if she was running neck and neck with Doug Ford, you can bet there would have been a lot of talk from those same people about voting strategically to save Toronto from another four years of embarrassment.

That isn't to say that strategic voting is always a bad thing.  At different times, I've voted my conscience, voted strategically, and abstained from voting, and I try not to begrudge anyone for doing any of those, especially when all mainstream political parties are all more or less within a fairly narrow band of political thought and short on vision.

I have NEVER in my life advocated "Strategic Voting". It simply means vote Liberal. I wish Libs posting on this board would be honest about it. But they won't be; because they want everyone here to believe they are the only ones being objective. Genstrike, I am not saying you are a Liberal, but I would appreciate if you would stop painting everyone here with such a broad brush. It is mainly Libs who advocate this. Its simply worth noting. I've ALWAYS voted my concience. There is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between Libs and Tories in terms of pactical governance outcomes. I am not going to be duped by them. I wish they would just be honest and say we should all vote Liberal, because....Liberal. And if there is one thing that I resent more about this, its that strategic voting is based on fear at an outcome. People can't win on ideas, so they try to scare others. That is despicable!

genstrike

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I have NEVER in my life advocated "Strategic Voting". It simply means vote Liberal. I wish Libs posting on this board would be honest about it. But they won't be; because they want everyone here to believe they are the only ones being objective. Genstriek, I am not saying you are a Liberal, but I would appreciate you would stop painting everyone here with such a broad brush. It is mainly Libs who advocate this. Its simply noting. I've ALWAYS voted my concince. There is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between Libs and Tories in terms of pactical governance outcomes. I am not going to be duped by them. I wish they would just be honest and say we should all vote Liberal, because....Liberal.

I'm not painting everyone here with the same brush, nor am I advocating strategic voting.  Though I do understand the reasons people do so, especially when there is so little difference between the mainstream parties that if you're going to hold your nose and vote, you might as well hold your nose and vote strategically.  And, for the record, I've never even voted Liberal -- my reference to personally voting strategically is voting strategically for an NDP that I was thoroughly frustrated with.  It's just a reoccurring observation I've had following a lot of political discussions, including with people not on the left -- that people tend to get a lot more open to and likely to advocate strategic voting when it suits their interests (granted, it tends to suit the interests of the Liberals the most, at least on the federal level).

For a parallel case on the right, in the recent Winnipeg municipal election, when Gord Steeves was second place in the polls, he said that it was important that voters stop Judy and the tax-and-spend NDP hordes from taking over city hall, even going so far as to suggest that there should only be one right-of-centre candidate on the ballot (namely himself) and the others should drop out.  As soon as he dropped to third place in the polls, his tune changed very quickly.  And so did Bowman's tune when he rose from third-place to neck-and-neck with Judy.

Debater

alan smithee wrote:

Trudeau is the face of the party.

Veteran Liberal MP's and brass make the decisions.

Not true.

Justin Trudeau is his own man & he makes the decisions.

That should be clear to anyone after his decisions on marijuana policy, anti-abortion candidates, and expelling the Liberal Senators.

If the "Veteran Liberal MP's and brass" made the decisions, none of those things would have happened.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Trudeau is the face of the party.

Veteran Liberal MP's and brass make the decisions.

Not true.

Justin Trudeau is his own man & he makes the decisions.

That should be clear to anyone after his decisions on marijuana policy, anti-abortion candidates, and expelling the Liberal Senators.

If the "Veteran Liberal MP's and brass" made the decisions, none of those things would have happened.

How do you ACUALLY know this Debater? I mean, who told you this. What actual source can you point to that validates your assertion? I don't think you have one. Prove it for once. Provide actual reference to wrtten proof somewhere this time for a change, instead of some cherry picked Liberal love piece.

 

genstrike

Also, I suspect the likelihood of Trudeau trotting out an campaign heavy on strategic voting depends precisely on how well he is doing in the polls.  If he's running neck and neck with Harper, then he'll probably do that.  If he's running a distant third or far out in first, that's less likely.  Also, if the campaign becomes solely about not being someone else, it will fizzle and die (see: Judy W-L in Winnipeg)

Unionist

genstrike wrote:

Also, I suspect the likelihood of Trudeau trotting out an campaign heavy on strategic voting depends precisely on how well he is doing in the polls.  If he's running neck and neck with Harper, then he'll probably do that.  If he's running a distant third or far out in first, that's less likely.  Also, if the campaign becomes solely about not being someone else, it will fizzle and die (see: Judy W-L in Winnipeg)

^^^ Very sensible analysis. ^^^

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

When it comes down to it, and this applies MORE then anything else to New Democrats, convince voters. That is how you win. You don't win by claiming to be either someone else, or denying you are. How hard is it for the NDP to understand. Based on what I've seen so far, it looks like it is very hard to understand.

swallow swallow's picture

"If you want to stop Harper, you cannot vote for the third-party Liberals." 

There you go, NDP government delivered. That was easy.

Debater

swallow wrote:

"If you want to stop Harper, you cannot vote for the third-party Liberals." 

There you go, NDP government delivered. That was easy.

The problem for the NDP is that they have been in 3rd place in the polls for most of the time Mulcair has been leader, and have never won a Federal election.

And there's no evidence that the NDP is building any momentum against the Conservatives outside Quebec.  All the municipal, provincial & federal results over the past couple years have resulted in non-Conservative voters choosing the Liberals as the best option to beat the Conservatives.

Chantal Hébert explores this issue in her column today:

The NDP’s problems are piling up across Canada 

Chantal Hébert, Wed Oct 29 2014

The failure of Olivia Chow’s mayoralty bid and the free-falling popularity of the Manitoba New Democrats are only the latest items on a long list of NDP woes.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/29/the_ndps_problems_are_pili...

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater wrote:

swallow wrote:

"If you want to stop Harper, you cannot vote for the third-party Liberals." 

There you go, NDP government delivered. That was easy.

The problem for the NDP is that they have been in 3rd place in the polls for most of the time Mulcair has been leader, and have never won a Federal election.

And there's no evidence that the NDP is building any momentum against the Conservatives outside Quebec.  All the municipal, provincial & federal results over the past couple years have resulted in non-Conservative voters choosing the Liberals as the best option to beat the Conservatives.

Chantal Hébert explores this issue in her column today:

The NDP’s problems are piling up across Canada 

Chantal Hébert, Wed Oct 29 2014

The failure of Olivia Chow’s mayoralty bid and the free-falling popularity of the Manitoba New Democrats are only the latest items on a long list of NDP woes.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/29/the_ndps_problems_are_pili...

"Debater", you posted this in another thread. What's the matter, not getting enough attention. You are truly shameless. Why do you call yourself "Debater", anyway? How is posting the same thing, over and over, "debating", exactly, anyway?

terrytowel

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I have NEVER in my life advocated "Strategic Voting". It simply means vote Liberal. I wish Libs posting on this board would be honest about it. But they won't be; because they want everyone here to believe they are the only ones being objective. Genstrike, I am not saying you are a Liberal, but I would appreciate if you would stop painting everyone here with such a broad brush. It is mainly Libs who advocate this. Its simply worth noting. I've ALWAYS voted my concience. There is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between Libs and Tories in terms of pactical governance outcomes. I am not going to be duped by them. I wish they would just be honest and say we should all vote Liberal, because....Liberal. And if there is one thing that I resent more about this, its that strategic voting is based on fear at an outcome. People can't win on ideas, so they try to scare others. That is despicable!

Arthur Cramer wrote:

When it comes down to it, and this applies MORE then anything else to New Democrats, convince voters. That is how you win. You don't win by claiming to be either someone else, or denying you are. How hard is it for the NDP to understand. Based on what I've seen so far, it looks like it is very hard to understand.

The explain John Tory urging strategic voting to win the Mayor's race. You have to admit Arthur, this one case where strategic voting worked.

Ford lost to Tory by only 7% of the vote.

If 65,000 voted their conscience and voted for Chow than Tory, Ford would have won.

Olivia was never going to win even if she got those 65,000 votes. Yet Ford would be Mayor if that happened.

Strategic voting worked in this case.

Unless you really wanted Ford as Mayor of Toronto.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

terrytowel wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I have NEVER in my life advocated "Strategic Voting". It simply means vote Liberal. I wish Libs posting on this board would be honest about it. But they won't be; because they want everyone here to believe they are the only ones being objective. Genstrike, I am not saying you are a Liberal, but I would appreciate if you would stop painting everyone here with such a broad brush. It is mainly Libs who advocate this. Its simply worth noting. I've ALWAYS voted my concience. There is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between Libs and Tories in terms of pactical governance outcomes. I am not going to be duped by them. I wish they would just be honest and say we should all vote Liberal, because....Liberal. And if there is one thing that I resent more about this, its that strategic voting is based on fear at an outcome. People can't win on ideas, so they try to scare others. That is despicable!

Arthur Cramer wrote:

When it comes down to it, and this applies MORE then anything else to New Democrats, convince voters. That is how you win. You don't win by claiming to be either someone else, or denying you are. How hard is it for the NDP to understand. Based on what I've seen so far, it looks like it is very hard to understand.

The explain John Tory urging strategic voting to win the Mayor's race. You have to admit Arthur, this one case where strategic voting worked.

Ford lost to Tory by only 7% of the vote.

If 65,000 voted their conscience and voted for Chow than Tory, Ford would have won.

Olivia was never going to win even if she got those 65,000 votes. Yet Ford would be Mayor if that happened.

Strategic voting worked in this case.

Unless you really wanted Ford as Mayor of Toronto.

Terrytowel, for a guy/gal (?) who calls him/herself, "independant", I find it very odd you would make such a strong case for strategic voiting. I would assume you would want everyone to vote "independatnly". Why is that? Only you get to be independant? Don't you trust your fellow citizens to vote in their interests? I'd suggest you don't baseed solely on your posts. You seem to think we have to shepard them like sheep to be sure they do the right thing. Strategic voting will only benefit the LPC and Le Dauphin. If you were truly voting stratetically, you'd give up your lost cause Greens cursase and vote NDP. Isn't the best strategy to elect a NDP govenrment? Based on your posts, I'd say not. You claerly want Justing Trudeau as PM, and a LPC government. I find your posts intellectually entirely inconsistent, and at best, confused.

terrytowel

Arthur Cramer wrote:

 If you were truly voting stratetically, you'd give up your lost cause Greens cursase and vote NDP. Isn't the best strategy to elect a NDP govenrment?

If we did that in this Toronto mayor race, (Voting Chow instead of Tory) Doug Ford would be the mayor today.

Arthur you are deflecting and not answering the question of strategic voting actually WORKING in the 2014 mayor's race.

Discuss the issue, rather than deflect.

btw I haven't ruled out voting NDP. If they have a very high profile candidate in my riding, they would have my vote.

Right now I'm just parking my vote with the Greens.

Debater

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"Debater", you posted this in another thread. What's the matter, not getting enough attention. You are truly shameless. Why do you call yourself "Debater", anyway? How is posting the same thing, over and over, "debating", exactly, anyway?

Arthur, I'll respond to you here with the same point I made in the other thread.

Please stop stalking me on every thread.  It's creepy and you have been doing it for a long time.  Whenever I post something, you are usually the first one to respond with an insult.

I have asked you not to call me 'Gloater' or to call me names.  I don't do that to you.

I posted a new column today by Chantal Hébert.  It's your choice as to whether you want to comment on or ignore an article.

Rather than attacking me personally, why not address the issues that Chantal Hébert raises?  That would suit the purposes of a political discussion forum.

swallow swallow's picture

Sorry, perhaps I was unclear. 

"If you want to stop Harper, you cannot vote for the third-party Liberals." 

"If you want to stop Harper, you cannot vote for the third-party Liberals." 

"If you want to stop Harper, you cannot vote for the third-party Liberals." 

There. Now we can assume the NDP has it in the bag, right?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

OK, "Debater", I'll answer Heibert. She's full of it. Just because she's a "Pundi", doesn't make her commentary valid. So what, she's a big shot? Really, so what. The election will be won on the ground and on what the party's pereent. She's simply another MSM, establsihment talking head. That's my answer. Yeah, Chow did poorly, but it simply means the NDP needs to address the issue of expanding support. But it in no way means the NDP is in trouble. Chatal Heibert isn't going to decide what is going to happen. I consider just another loud mothed "opinion jounralist", on the order of Rex Murphy who is too impressed with themsevles. Address that.

And speaking of Creepy, what could be more creepy then refusing to debate? I have asked you very amicably to tell all of us why you think the Libs are the answer and tell us why you have the answers. Now, that is creepy. Its like you don't think you don't owe us the respect to respond to anyone while presenting the opinons of others as the gospel

terrytowel

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Yeah, Chow did poorly, but it simply means the NDP needs to address the issue of expanding support. But it in no way means the NDP is in trouble.

If Doug Ford wins the PC Ontario Leadership that is vert bad news for the Ontario NDP. Ford pulls NDP support, at least 25%. Combined with their PC support, especially in the 905 I think the NDP won't even achieve party status in 2018.

terrytowel

swallow wrote:

Sorry, perhaps I was unclear. 

"If you want to stop Harper, you cannot vote for the third-party Liberals." 

"If you want to stop Harper, you cannot vote for the third-party Liberals." 

"If you want to stop Harper, you cannot vote for the third-party Liberals." 

There. Now we can assume the NDP has it in the bag, right?

No because NDP stratgeist Robin Sears said today no one can beat the Libs from messaging stategic voting. It is in the Libs blood, not the NDP.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

terrytowel wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Yeah, Chow did poorly, but it simply means the NDP needs to address the issue of expanding support. But it in no way means the NDP is in trouble.

If Doug Ford wins the PC Ontario Leadership that is vert bad news for the Ontario NDP. Ford pulls NDP support, at least 25%. Combined with their PC support, especially in the 905 I think the NDP won't even achieve party status in 2018.

Or not. Its about getting out your message. THAT, is the NDP's problem; NOT, Doug Ford.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

terrytowel wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

 If you were truly voting stratetically, you'd give up your lost cause Greens cursase and vote NDP. Isn't the best strategy to elect a NDP govenrment?

If we did that in this Toronto mayor race, (Voting Chow instead of Tory) Doug Ford would be the mayor today.

Arthur you are deflecting and not answering the question of strategic voting actually WORKING in the 2014 mayor's race.

Discuss the issue, rather than deflect.

btw I haven't ruled out voting NDP. If they have a very high profile candidate in my riding, they would have my vote.

Right now I'm just parking my vote with the Greens.

And here is my answer to Stragic voting "working'. If it means electing Liberals, that means it DOESN'T, work. And the LAST things, Lib Partisans, like the ones on this board, and this isn't aimed at you will do, is vote, "STRATEGICLLY", for ANY, NDP Candidate.

terrytowel

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Or not. Its about getting out your message. THAT, is the NDP's problem; NOT, Doug Ford.

With Doug Ford as Ont PC leader he will scoop up at least 25% of votes from NDP supporters, and at least half of NDP supporters will run to the Libs to Stop Ford.

Which leaves only 25% for them, not enough to get party status in 2018

NDP call not to vote out of fear is NOT WORKING. This is clear from the prov election and mayor race,

They need a new narrative to stop strategic voting. Everywhere Doug Ford goes he is treated like a Rock Star. And he will steal NDP support, at least 25%

Arthur Cramer wrote:

And here is my answer to Stragic voting "working'. If it means electing Liberals, that means it DOESN'T, work. And the LAST things, Lib Partisans, like the ones on this board, and this isn't aimed at you will do, is vote, "STRATEGICLLY", for ANY, NDP Candidate.

Which means you would rather have Doug Ford as Mayor, cause if Toronto didn't vote strategically that is what would have happened. The numbers don't lie.

But maybe you do want that Arthur. Because if Doug Ford wins the PC ON leadership, the NDP in Ontario wil be decimated. And won't get party status.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

terrytowel wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Or not. Its about getting out your message. THAT, is the NDP's problem; NOT, Doug Ford.

With Doug Ford as Ont PC leader he will scoop up at least 25% of votes from NDP supporters, and at least half of NDP supporters will run to the Libs to Stop Ford.

Which leaves only 25% for them, not enough to get party status in 2018

NDP call not to vote out of fear is NOT WORKING. This is clear from the prov election and mayor race,

They need a new narrative to stop strategic voting. Everywhere Doug Ford goes he is treated like a Rock Star. And he will steal NDP support, at least 25%

Arthur Cramer wrote:

And here is my answer to Stragic voting "working'. If it means electing Liberals, that means it DOESN'T, work. And the LAST things, Lib Partisans, like the ones on this board, and this isn't aimed at you will do, is vote, "STRATEGICLLY", for ANY, NDP Candidate.

Which means you would rather have Doug Ford as Mayor, cause if Toronto didn't vote strategically that is what would have happened. The numbers don't lie.

But maybe you do want that Arthur. Because if Doug Ford wins the PC ON leadership, the NDP in Ontario wil be decimated. And won't get party status.

Stop being afraid of everything!

terrytowel

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Stop being afraid of everything!

After what we have gone through with the Fords, you bet Toronto was scared for another Ford. And for good reason.

Again this Toronto mayor race was one case where strategic voting worked.

genstrike

terrytowel wrote:

Which means you would rather have Doug Ford as Mayor, cause if Toronto didn't vote strategically that is what would have happened. The numbers don't lie.

You keep repeating the assertion that strategic voting is what defeated Doug Ford. Do you have any evidence that over 65,000 but less than 105,000 of the people who voted for John Tory were Olivia Chow supporters who decided to vote "strategically"? Or do you have as much evidence for this assertion as you do for your assertions regarding the Winnipeg municipal election?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The fact that John Tory was elected mayor proves strategic voting doesn't work.

The difference between Tory and the Fords?

About 300lbs.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

terrytowel wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Stop being afraid of everything!

After what we have gone through with the Fords, you bet Toronto was scared for another Ford. And for good reason.

Again this Toronto mayor race was one case where strategic voting worked.

Terry towel, I don't do fear.

nicky

Polls consistently showed that only about a third of the electorate would even consider voting for one of the Fords and that two thirds would never vote for them under any circumstances.

Doug F certainly maximimized his vote at 33.7% but no poll ever indicated he could get more than that. For him to have won would have required a precisely equal (and improbable) vote split between Chow and Tory.

This was so unlikley that tactical voting can be eliminated as a decisive factor in Tory's victory. Doubtless some Chow supporters went for Tory to ensure Ford's defeat but, despite TerryT saying it 50 times, this did not make the difference

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

terrytowel wrote:

genstrike wrote:
terrytowel wrote:

Which means you would rather have Doug Ford as Mayor, cause if Toronto didn't vote strategically that is what would have happened. The numbers don't lie.

You keep repeating the assertion that strategic voting is what defeated Doug Ford. Do you have any evidence that over 65,000 but less than 105,000 of the people who voted for John Tory were Olivia Chow supporters who decided to vote "strategically"?

You are kidding right? That is all people in Toronto talked about 'strategic voting' to stop Ford.

Why do you think Olivia said over and over again 'Don't vote out of fear'

Anytime reported did streets with voters, a majority said the same thing. Voting for Tory to stop Ford.

65,000 is a low estimation. It could be as high as 150,000 that swiched from Chow to Tory.

Either way a swing of either number stopped Ford.

So let's see if we have this right. You "heard" people say they voted strategically so that makes it true?

terrytowel

genstrike wrote:
terrytowel wrote:

Which means you would rather have Doug Ford as Mayor, cause if Toronto didn't vote strategically that is what would have happened. The numbers don't lie.

You keep repeating the assertion that strategic voting is what defeated Doug Ford. Do you have any evidence that over 65,000 but less than 105,000 of the people who voted for John Tory were Olivia Chow supporters who decided to vote "strategically"?

You are kidding right? That is all people in Toronto talked about 'strategic voting' to stop Ford.

Why do you think Olivia said over and over again 'Don't vote out of fear'

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/10/15/olivia_chow_dont_vo...

She even had a card madeup

Anytime reporter did streets with voters, a majority said the same thing. Voting for Tory to stop Ford.

65,000 is a low estimation. It could be as high as 150,000 that swiched from Chow to Tory.

Either way a swing of either number stopped Ford.

terrytowel

nicky wrote:

Polls consistently showed that only about a third of the electorate would even consider voting for one of the Fords and that two thirds would never vote for them under any circumstances.

Doug F certainly maximimized his vote at 33.7% but no poll ever indicated he could get more than that. For him to have won would have required a precisely equal (and improbable) vote split between Chow and Tory.

This was so unlikley that tactical voting can be eliminated as a decisive factor in Tory's victory. Doubtless some Chow supporters went for Tory to ensure Ford's defeat but, despite TerryT saying it 50 times, this did not make the difference

Only 65,000 votes separted Tory and Ford. He lost by 7%.

For sure at least 65,000 voted to stop Ford. That is not 50 times that, it is 7%. There is NO dispute.

terrytowel

Arthur Cramer wrote:
So let's see if we have this right. You "heard" people say they voted strategically so that makes it true?

No because she kept saying over and over again 'Don't Vote Out Of Fear' as strategic voting dominated this campaign

Olivia Chow: Don't vote based on fear

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/10/15/olivia_chow_dont_vo...

genstrike

terrytowel wrote:

genstrike wrote:
terrytowel wrote:

Which means you would rather have Doug Ford as Mayor, cause if Toronto didn't vote strategically that is what would have happened. The numbers don't lie.

You keep repeating the assertion that strategic voting is what defeated Doug Ford. Do you have any evidence that over 65,000 but less than 105,000 of the people who voted for John Tory were Olivia Chow supporters who decided to vote "strategically"?

You are kidding right? That is all people in Toronto talked about 'strategic voting' to stop Ford.

Why do you think Olivia said over and over again 'Don't vote out of fear'

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/10/15/olivia_chow_dont_vo...

She even had a card madeup

Anytime reporter did streets with voters, a majority said the same thing. Voting for Tory to stop Ford.

65,000 is a low estimation. It could be as high as 150,000 that swiched from Chow to Tory.

Either way a swing of either number stopped Ford.

If 150,000 (your number) of Tory's voters were Chow supporters who decided to vote "strategically," then they shot themselves in the foot. If they had voted for their first choice, Chow would have won with over 370,000 votes to Doug Ford's 330,000, and strategic voting did nothing to stop Ford because he would have lost anyways.

terrytowel

genstrike wrote:

If 150,000 (your number) of Tory's voters were Chow supporters who decided to vote "strategically," then they shot themselves in the foot. If they had voted for their first choice, Chow would have won with over 370,000 votes to Doug Ford's 330,000, and strategic voting did nothing to stop Ford because he would have lost anyways.

Actually my number is and has always been 65,000. I just mused it could of been as high as 150,000.

But in truth only 65,000 voters separated Tory from Ford.

mark_alfred

nicky wrote:

Polls consistently showed that only about a third of the electorate would even consider voting for one of the Fords and that two thirds would never vote for them under any circumstances.

Doug F certainly maximimized his vote at 33.7% but no poll ever indicated he could get more than that. For him to have won would have required a precisely equal (and improbable) vote split between Chow and Tory.

This was so unlikley that tactical voting can be eliminated as a decisive factor in Tory's victory. Doubtless some Chow supporters went for Tory to ensure Ford's defeat but, despite TerryT saying it 50 times, this did not make the difference

Agreed.  And he'll say it 50 times for the upcoming federal election as he did in the last Ont provincial election and in the last federal election.  A broken record stuck in the same old groove.  Fear one right-winger to vote for another right-winger, NDP/progressive votes just help allegedly scary right-winger so vote for the allegedly less-scary right-winger, NDP/progressive in race not overly different from allegedly less-scary right-winger so vote that right-wing option rather than NDP/progressive option to avoid allegedly scary right-winger, etc.  Over and over again.  Best ignored for those who want to see progressive politics pursued rather than given up on as terrytowel advocates.  Labelling voting for a right-winger as "strategic" is meaningless -- it is simply giving up on pursuing a progressive agenda, which really contradicts the whole purpose of Rabble, I feel.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

terrytowel wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

nicky wrote:

Polls consistently showed that only about a third of the electorate would even consider voting for one of the Fords and that two thirds would never vote for them under any circumstances.

Doug F certainly maximimized his vote at 33.7% but no poll ever indicated he could get more than that. For him to have won would have required a precisely equal (and improbable) vote split between Chow and Tory.

This was so unlikley that tactical voting can be eliminated as a decisive factor in Tory's victory. Doubtless some Chow supporters went for Tory to ensure Ford's defeat but, despite TerryT saying it 50 times, this did not make the difference

Agreed.  And he'll say it 50 times for the upcoming federal election as he did in the last Ont provincial election and in the last federal election.  A broken record stuck in the same old groove.  Fear one right-winger to vote for another right-winger, NDP/progressive votes just help allegedly scary right-winger so vote for the allegedly less-scary right-winger, NDP/progressive in race not overly different from allegedly less-scary right-winger so vote that option to avoid allegedly scary right-winger, etc.  Over and over again.  Best ignored for those who want to see progressive politics pursued rather than given up on as terrytowel advocates.  Labelling voting for a right-winger as "strategic" is meaningless -- it is simply giving up on pursuing a progressive agenda, which really contradicts the whole purpose of Rabble, I feel.

Nicky you are deflecting.

50 times doesn't equal losing by 7%

Separated by only 65,000 votes.

Even with the numbers staring people in the face, everyone is still in denial that stratgeic voting didn't play a role.

But then I guess everyone on this board wanted Doug Ford as mayor, if Olivia couldn't win.

Terry towel, you still haven't provided quantitative evidence to back up ur claim . You know, this argument reminds of all those accusations the NDP are the reason Harper won. Funny, that.

terrytowel

Arthur Cramer wrote:

 Terry towel, you still haven't provided quantitative evidence to back up ur claim . You know, this argument reminds of all those accusations the NDP are the reason Harper won. Funny, that.

Olivia said it best herself as she tried in the last days of the campaign to stop strategic voting

http://rabble.ca/comment/1465537#comment-1465537

Again the 'Don't vote out of Fear' is NOT WORKING.

They need a new narrative to stop strategic voting.

mark_alfred

Can someone nudge the needle a bit?  That record keeps repeating, stuck in the same old groove.

 

terrytowel

mark_alfred wrote:

Can someone nudge the needle a bit?  That record keeps repeating, stuck in the same old groove.

 

Well if people keep asking the question, I'm going to give the same answer.

If Doug Ford would to be Ont PC leader, 50% of NDP voters will run to the Liberals out of fear, with the other 25% going to Ford.

The NDP would be lucky to keep party status.

They need abother narrative than 'Don't vote out of Fear' because it is NOT WORKING.

Evidenced by  the last two elections where strategic voting worked.

 

terrytowel

mark_alfred wrote:

nicky wrote:

Polls consistently showed that only about a third of the electorate would even consider voting for one of the Fords and that two thirds would never vote for them under any circumstances.

Doug F certainly maximimized his vote at 33.7% but no poll ever indicated he could get more than that. For him to have won would have required a precisely equal (and improbable) vote split between Chow and Tory.

This was so unlikley that tactical voting can be eliminated as a decisive factor in Tory's victory. Doubtless some Chow supporters went for Tory to ensure Ford's defeat but, despite TerryT saying it 50 times, this did not make the difference

Agreed.  And he'll say it 50 times for the upcoming federal election as he did in the last Ont provincial election and in the last federal election.  A broken record stuck in the same old groove.  Fear one right-winger to vote for another right-winger, NDP/progressive votes just help allegedly scary right-winger so vote for the allegedly less-scary right-winger, NDP/progressive in race not overly different from allegedly less-scary right-winger so vote that option to avoid allegedly scary right-winger, etc.  Over and over again.  Best ignored for those who want to see progressive politics pursued rather than given up on as terrytowel advocates.  Labelling voting for a right-winger as "strategic" is meaningless -- it is simply giving up on pursuing a progressive agenda, which really contradicts the whole purpose of Rabble, I feel.

Nicky you are deflecting.

50 times doesn't equal losing by 7%

Separated by only 65,000 votes.

Even with the numbers staring people in the face, everyone is still in denial that stratgeic voting didn't play a major role.

Strategic voting worked for Wynne, it worked for Tory. Why not go 3 for 3 with Trudeau?

 

swallow swallow's picture

I know for a fact that 72,000 people voted for Doug Ford in an attempt to stop John Tory from becoming Mayor. And they all were thinking as they cast their vote: "If you want to stop John Tory, you cannot vote for Olivia Chow." 

And I have it on good authority that at least 17,000 people voted for Olivia Chow to stop Ari Goldkind, and 3,000 people voted for Tory to stop the white supremacist from winning. No one voted for anyone, they all voted against someone else. 

Wait, actually, it was 75,000 people who voted strategically for Ford to defeat Tory. I have a list!

Pages