Would a PC party led by Doug Ford reduce the NDP to non-party status in 2018?

Will an ONDP led by Andrea Horwath reduce the ONDP to non-party status in 2018?

It's totally possible the NDP gets squeezed in a Wynne-Ford fight, particularly in Windsor-Essex, Niagara, and the north.  You could envision seat losses in Essex to the PC, Parkdale, Danforth to Liberals, Oshawa to PC, maybe even Waterloo and a London seat the the Liberals.  Timmins or Temiskaming to the PC.

Better go easy on Hillary's famously failed 'deplorables' approach as well or he'll be elected for sure. He has lots of grassroots support and there's lots of stories circulating about how the Fords could be reached on the phone and actually helped people solve problems etc etc. I think one of his big vulnerabilities is his vow to rollback the minimum wage and that should be capitalized upon.

If all else fails, perhaps  Horvath could put in a call to Moscow. Or a rumour started that Doug the slug already has...

Not necessarily.  Brown provided an excellent foil for Wynne and Horwath, his numbers had been on a downward trend.  The PC's polled higher than previously did when they had NO leader vs when they had Brown.  Ford could increase the margins.

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Not necessarily.  Brown provided an excellent foil for Wynne and Horwath, his numbers had been on a downward trend.  The PC's polled higher than previously did when they had NO leader vs when they had Brown.  Ford could increase the margins.

Brown was polling lower because Conservatives didn't like him. He came to be seen as an establishment hack like the others.

Ford will do better with those that didn't like Brown, but he'll do worse with others including swing voters.

I expect a PC majority with NDP official opposition. I think the Liberals are going to get decimated. I think that would happen anyway, but it is sure to happen as long as Ford and Horwath make sure every voting citizen who knows anything about the election knows about this:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/reevely-hiding-billions-in-hydr...

Earlier this year, Premier Kathleen Wynne gave up defending the increases in the price of electricity since the Liberals took over in 2003. She and her cabinet put together a plan to cut bills that amounted to paying today’s costs with borrowed money and repaying it with interest later. It has already cut residential bills by an average of 25 per cent, beginning last summer. And it will increase them by a combined total of $21 billion over time, when all that interest has to be paid, according to a previous report by Ontario’s financial accountability officer (whose job is specifically to run budget numbers independently of the government, and whose findings Lysyk used for her dollar figures)....

The Liberals really, really, really wanted to keep that debt off their books, so they could also go into the next election saying the provincial budget is balanced. Borrowing billions in an election year would get in the way. So they did some advanced financial engineering to put the debt on Ontario Power Generation instead. The Crown corporation is publicly owned but it doesn’t get interest rates as good as the provincial government itself, so that’s where the $4-billion premium comes in....

But the ground they’re fighting over is whether the trick the Liberals used to keep the debt off the government books at a cost of billions of dollars is an acceptable trick, not whether they’re keeping the debt off the government books or whether it’s going to cost billions of dollars.

Which is just what you want from your government, right?

Because the first wasted billion from the gas plant cancellations wasn't enough, right?

Anyway, there is a chance the NDP wins depending on how badly the campaign goes for the Liberals and how Ford handles the attacks that have already begun. I'm skeptical but it's possible. For sure the NDP won't be reduced to non-party status, although the Liberals might.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Liberals  could abandon Wynne to go to Horwath in enough numbers to avoid the kind of split that Ford needs. Cannot hold his 45% through the debates and drops to 40, and the NDP can get that vote plus a chunk of previous Liberal voters, she could lead at least a minority.

Seems we agree.

With respect to your comment about where Ford can draw support from, I'll just mention one thing and you and other readers can draw your own conclusions about it: I'm observing similar levels of excitement and enthusiasm for Ford as I did for Trump. This shouldn't be presumed to be a given, because for comparison there was not and is not this or really any kind of excitement or enthusiam for Scheer.

Pondering wrote:

It is incredible to me that world wide the left doesn't seem able to take the anti-establishment "screw you" votes and the Conservatives do get that vote through the Trumps and Fords of the world. 

As I have suggested to you in other threads, lying works better in political camapaigns than telling the truth, especially when the truth is rather grim. Thus, slime balls on the right who are willing to say anything tend to do better than those on the left who try to be truthful. It's a natural advantage for people with no conscience.

That's a good point.  The answer is to be bold, not timid.  And to offer real populism--economic populism---and disregard the corporate media naysayers.

Doug Ford said in a scrum yesterday that he is confident that he can knock off all NDP incumbents in all Windsor, Hamilton and Thunder Bay seats. In fact he predicts that he will win the most seats every in a Provincial election.

Mighty Middle wrote:

Doug Ford said in a scrum yesterday that he is confident that he can knock off all NDP incumbents in all Windsor, Hamilton and Thunder Bay seats. In fact he predicts that he will win the most seats every in a Provincial election.

He is using superlatives in a way that we seldom see in politics -- but there is one other person who speaks like this. A person may introduce a new phenomenon  and others will think that they can duplicate it -- but by virtue of it having been done, things are no longer the same. The existence of Trump might make it harder for a Trump like figure to succeed. It is not clear that the same coalition exists here. I have seen no indication that Ford intends the kind of racist component of Trump.

All that said, Ford' promise to raise the basic exemption for tax to $30,000 may get the attention of many in that earning range and some will appreciate that. These policies may have some of the trappings of being for the people but coming from the right wing they are not. I have argued that the basic exemption could be raised to about $20,000 and paid for by taxes on wealthy people and corporations. Ford will provide tax cuts to all and pay for them with the destruction of benefits that the most vulnerable depend on. But his policy may sound familiar enough to get people to support him -- and then they would pay.

He is pledging to cut $6 Billion out of Government spending (which he said himself, 4% of Government spending is 6 Billion dollars). So even if he exempts those making 30K or less any provincial tax, they would pay in other ways. Healthcare cuts, Educations cuts, childcare cuts (important to single mothers making under 30K) , downloading of services to municipalities. So Andrea Horwath could easily counter "You can't rob Peter to pay Paul". Meaning even if you get a break one place, you would pay in another place.  The money has to come somewhere.

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It is incredible to me that world wide the left doesn't seem able to take the anti-establishment "screw you" votes and the Conservatives do get that vote through the Trumps and Fords of the world. 

As I have suggested to you in other threads, lying works better in political camapaigns than telling the truth, especially when the truth is rather grim. Thus, slime balls on the right who are willing to say anything tend to do better than those on the left who try to be truthful. It's a natural advantage for people with no conscience.

We can tell the truth without making it grim. The left has to offer a better vision of the future than the right offers. Doug Ford is saying he will get the government out of the cannabis industry. That is common sense that is hard to find. 

The NDP should promise the same tax exemption but say where the money will come (tax the rich) pointing out that cutting services makes life more expensive.  

The other side may say that they want to legalize the drug but not the drug dealers. This campaign is just starting.

None of which supports the argument that it's possible to stop Ford by voting Liberal, since it's impossible for the Liberals, as the party now in third place, to be MORE electable than the ONDP.  The Liberals have collapsed in Toronto and if they've collapsed in Toronto they have nothing.

Mighty Middle wrote:

Now Tarek Fatah is joining the Doug Ford team. Calling himself a "leftie" he dragged three other "lefties" to a Doug Ford event.

From his Toronto Sun column today

How can the feminist Women’s March be considered on the Left when its leader is the hijabi Linda Sarsour, the right-wing supporter of the ultra-right Muslim Brotherhood.”

“Yeah, and how about the leftist activist who cheers the Jew-hating Louis Farrakhan?” asked Schezad, the one-time Commie now a manager in a pharmaceutical enterprise, referring to Tamika Mallory of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Zaidi reminded me that I had campaigned against Rob Ford when he ran for the mayor of Toronto. “But the same Mayor Ford and Doug Ford came to see me in the hospital as I battled cancer despite my ridiculing the mayor on my Newstalk 1010 radio show,” I protested.

“That’s rather selfish of you,” retorted Zaidi.

The banter continued until the discussion turned to the NDP and its new leader, Jagmeet Singh.

“Right, now that is a true socialist, isn’t he,” asked Schezad with barely concealed sarcasm.

“Between Jagmeet’s $5,000 designer suits and Doug Ford’s jackets from Walmart, the choice is clear: I’d be more comfortable with the Etobicoke city councillor who has Ontario and Canada in mind than a guy molded in medieval religious symbols who was once ‘Jimmy Dhaliwal’ the lawyer, but then dropped both the last and first names he was known by,” Schezad added.

http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/fatah-four-lefties-for-doug-ford

So now Tarek Fatah claims he has converted three former NDP supporters to support Ford, and he promises many more to come.

We should address the name smear:

Jagmeet is his real name and Jimmy a name used to fit in.

And then:

During his first campaign, Singh eschewed using his actual last name “Dhaliwal.” It was the name he used to practice law, and the one everyone knew him by, but he said he wanted to drop the Punjabi upper-caste surname to send a message. The caste system is racist and classist, he said, and he wanted his candidacy to represent a message of equality and justice.

https://www.sikhnet.com/news/inspiring-journey-jimmy-dhaliwal-jagmeet-singh

Mighty Middle wrote:

He is pledging to cut $6 Billion out of Government spending (which he said himself, 4% of Government spending is 6 Billion dollars). So even if he exempts those making 30K or less any provincial tax, they would pay in other ways. Healthcare cuts, Educations cuts, childcare cuts (important to single mothers making under 30K) , downloading of services to municipalities. So Andrea Horwath could easily counter "You can't rob Peter to pay Paul". Meaning even if you get a break one place, you would pay in another place.  The money has to come somewhere.

Broadly I agree, but it would be a very bad idea for anyone to label a tax cut as "robbing Peter to pay Paul" when running against someone like Ford. He will turn that argument around on you so fast your head will spin.

Doug Ford just flip-flopped on pot, throwing Marc & Jodie Emery under the bus. After saying yesterday he supports a free market for selling pot, less than 24 hours later he has changed his tune. Now saying he doesn't support legalization, and for now pot must be sold in LCBO for safety reasons. He says we could look into expanding in the free market some time in the future.

I suspect his pollsters showed him polling showing how legal pot is unpopular with ethnic communities in the 905. Harper had the same data, which he tried to use as a wedge issue against Trudeau. Ford needs wins in the 905 to have any chance of getting a majority. Hence the change on pot.

Ipsos Reid: PC 39 Liberals 32 NDP 25

https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-polls/global-news-Ontario-vote-poll-March-15-2018

Debater wrote:

That Ipsos-Reid poll is interesting.

It has the Ontario Liberals in 2nd place and the NDP in 3rd.

If that stays like that, it gives Wynne the opportunity to persuade the anti-Ford voters that she has the best chance of beating him.

Perhaps -- on the other hand this is something that works between opposition parties more effectively. When one is a governemtn you are looking at votes for or agianst the governmetn as well as against the right wing party.

The other issue is that the NDP could be behind but might have more potential for growth.

This is not simple. Many polls have the NDP ahead and their leader more popular. The NDP might be the only party that could defeat Ford.

Debater wrote:

That Ipsos-Reid poll is interesting.

It has the Ontario Liberals in 2nd place and the NDP in 3rd.

If that stays like that, it gives Wynne the opportunity to persuade the anti-Ford voters that she has the best chance of beating him.

However there is more evidence that the NDP has more room for growth.

Thirty per cent of decided voters plan to support the Progressive Conservatives in the June 7 election, according to the poll, while just 12 per cent plan to vote Liberal.

Thirteen per cent of voters surveyed said they’re locked in to support Andrea Horwath’s New Democrats.

The results raise the possibility of the NDP assuming the role of official Opposition.

“They’ve got more room to grow than the Liberals,” Yufest said.

While Ford enjoys more committed support than Wynne, his backers are also more solid, the polling suggests.

Much of Wynne’s base comes from millennial voters who reached adulthood after 2000, while Ford is backed by an older crowd, according to the poll. 

Millennials are very unreliable when it comes to turning out at the polls and voting, Yufest said.

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/03/17/progressive-conservat...

I totally dislike strategic voting. Even so, this is far to early to consider. People wanting to do this effectively should stay with first preferences until later in the campaign which may make more clear if there is one party that strategic voting could lift over the party they want to avoid. At this point a mistake can elect the party they are trying to avoid and lead to the most desired party failing as others try to out game or out think everyone else.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Like "the Prisoners' Dilemma".

If you and the other prisoner stand shoulder to shoulder you both benefit.  If you sell out the other prisoner and he doesn't sell you out, you benefit (and vice versa).  If you both sell each other out, you both suffer for it.  But as with elections, there's no way to know how the other(s) will go.

You left out the most important part of the dilemma. If you sell out the other prisoner, and they don't sell you out, you benefit more than you would if both prisoners maintain solidarity. Without that extra incentive to cheat, everyone would be cooperative.

There is a serious problem in polling at this point in a campaign and later people will put this down to shifts between parties when that is not really the case.

Polls identify the support for each party and then an undecided. If you consider this vote to be a negative vote, as frequently undecided votes are, you can interpret this in three ways right now:

1) The undecided  is a vote against the government trying to figure out whether to go NDP or Conservative.

or

2) The undecided  is a vote agaisnt the Conservatives trying to figure out whether to go NDP or Liberal

or

3) A mix of the first and second.

It is unlikely that there is a vote against the NDP trying to figure out which way to go.

This would be good news for the NDP. Consider if this were the third. It would mean that the NDP and the Conservatives would split the first, the NDP and Liberals woulf split the second. The result would be that the NDP is on track for half the undecided and the other two parties on track for a quarter each. This would suggest any tie between the unpopular Liberals and the NDP may in face be a significant NDP advantage.

So, it may be better not to attribute the undecided just yet. Instead we might want to be concerned about the decided Conservative support. In the Campaign Research Poll it is at 38% -- were this to be true then the Conservatives, barring a mistake have a huge lead. But other polls have a higher undecided with the Conservatives at 33% which, depending on who the undecided are and why they are undecided could mean the PCs have an advantage or it could mean things are tighter than the look with the NDP a step ahead of the Liberals.

It is important to be cautious about these polls now.

Things will of course become clearer once the campaign is more advanced and there have been at least one debate. By then we should see some of the undecided start to move and an idea of what the volatility actually means (which parties are really competing for that vote).

And the Liberals have a formidable machine, while I give them a disadvantage, they have an ability to pivot, make announcements before the campaign and catch up to anyone who falters. Nobody should think this is over for any of the parties. I consider this leaning Conservative but potentially closer than many might think if this undecided is not potential growth for Ford.

When does the election campaign actually start?  Is it likely we'll see shifts in opinion when people in Ontario actually connect with the reality that they're going to have to decide who runs the government there?