Bryant resigns - St. Paul's by-election

108 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Sat, 2009-05-23 13:44

aka Mycroft

Michael Bryant has quit McGuinty's cabinet to accept a job with the City of Toronto. Having been demoted after the last election from his position of Attorney-General there was clearly no love lost between Bryant and the Premier and it appears that Bryant, who was widely considered to be a possible successor to McGuinty, concluded that Dalton isn't going anywhere soon and decided that 10 years in the legislature was enough.

This sudden by-election must make John Tory go d'oh as he might have had a chance in St. Paul's - a riding once held by Isabel Bassett. The area had also been represented by Tory Larry Grossman until 1987. Indeed, John Tory is probably the only Tory who'd have a shot in St. Paul's these days. With him off the scene it'll almost certainly stay Liberal.

Who will be Bryant's successor. My guess is that the interminable headline hunter and self-promotor Josh Matlow, currently St. Paul's school trustee, will run for the nomination and will almost certainly get it unless McGuinty is thinking of trying to bolster his cabinet by using the relatively safe seat as an entry for a star candidate.

Sat, 2009-05-23 14:24

Lord Palmerston

I grew up in St. Pauls. It used to be a Liberal/Tory tossup, but now it's one of the safest Liberal seats around at this point. I think the Tory brand has become toxic there among the high-income professional types. David Miller beat John Tory there in the 2003 municipal election by a wide margin. And the school funding issue didn't seem to help Tory there (arguably it hurt him) even with the large Jewish population in the riding.

I wonder how quickly McGuinty will call it.

Sat, 2009-05-23 17:11

adma

Though the Tory vote did solidify last time in the more Jewish-y parts; but treaded water or cratered most everywhere else, as per usual. And even that might have been an illusion through Liberals being the big (and perhaps token) share losers in 2007 over 2003 (Bryant, at 47.5%, was down 7 points, while the PCs were up 2, NDP up 1, and Greens up 3--though with Bryant still the solid winner from the getgo, that was all academic anyway).

I suppose it's less a matter of simple Tory brand toxicity, than of said blue-leaning "high-income professional types" being a more limited and isolated demo than it once might have appeared--Forest Hill in and of itself is no longer capable of swinging the whole riding--and of Bryant and Carolyn Bennett having terrific cross-spectrum constituency appeal. But in a "Joyce Murray byelection" scenario, a Tory scare is possible. Still.

Then again, given the present state of party leadership, St. Paul's is the kind of seat where the second-place scare can conceivably come from the NDP...

Sat, 2009-05-23 20:47

Wilf Day

Rob Newman didn't do that well against Michael Walker in 2006, but then, who would have?

He's the former Deputy Leader of the Ontario Greens from 2004 to 2006 who left the Green Party and is now a Liberal. Might he challenge Josh Matlow for the nomination?

Sun, 2009-05-24 14:28

robbie_dee

adma wrote:

Though the Tory vote did Then again, given the present state of party leadership, St. Paul's is the kind of seat where the second-place scare can conceivably come from the NDP...

Are there any significant areas of NDP strength in the riding? Any potential high profile candidates? What part of Toronto does this riding actually cover?

Sun, 2009-05-24 14:57

Lord Palmerston

The riding covers roughly Bayview to Oakwood and the CPR tracks up to Eglinton. Much of it is very wealthy (esp. Forest Hill) but there are pockets of NDP support in the western half of the riding, the area represented by Joe Mihevc on City Council.

Sun, 2009-05-24 22:07

adma

Lord Palmerston wrote:
but there are pockets of NDP support in the western half of the riding, the area represented by Joe Mihevc on City Council.

...and actually quite significant pockets of real and latent NDP support, going west of Bathurst and SW of Cedarvale ravine, i.e. with strong past histories of provincial NDP strength. Indeed, the "Wychwood Barns" orbit could just as well be painlessly annexed into Trinity-Spadina.

It's no accident that Jack Layton made a serious bid with Paul Summerville in 2006; though it probably would take a candidate of Mihevc's calibre to even cinch second place...

Mon, 2009-05-25 04:50

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

aka Mycroft wrote:

Who will be Bryant's successor. My guess is that the interminable headline hunter and self-promotor Josh Matlow, currently St. Paul's school trustee, will run for the nomination and will almost certainly get it unless McGuinty is thinking of trying to bolster his cabinet by using the relatively safe seat as an entry for a star candidate.

If McGuinty dislikes Bryant, he should absolutely loathe Matlow. Matlow is even more of a mediahound, and even less substantial - a perfect successor to 'Pitbull' Bryant, really.

Josh Matlow typifies everything I despise about the Liberals today - a preening pretendy and insincere weathervane of a lad, full of ambition and bullshit.

Mon, 2009-05-25 07:23

KenS

Idle curiousity question.

Given the recent turn of events- McGuinty hard pressuring the CAW to make ever more concessions- I rather doubt that Buzz Hargrove is hanging around Liberals these days.

But does anyone know whether Buzz hung out with Bryant, somewhat?

Tue, 2009-05-26 18:36

#10

V. Jara

First test of Andrea Horwath's leadership anyone?

Thu, 2009-05-28 11:36

#11

Debater

Michael Bryant was a spoiled brat who seemed to think he was entitled to whatever position he wanted. I'm glad he's gone.

And I agree with those above who say that John Tory probably wouldn't have had a strong chance in this seat anyway considering what happened to him the last time he ran in a Toronto seat and the fact that the Cons have no seats in the 416 federally or provincially.

Mon, 2009-06-22 22:08

#12

StarSuburb

Bump, I was reading something that former federal Winnipeg mayor turned Toronto resident Glen Murray might be a possibility, apparently he strongly considered running for the provincial Libs in Toronto-Danforth in 2007.

Tue, 2009-06-23 12:21

#13

Uncle John

There is no chance for any kind of conservative candidate in St. Paul's, moderate or right-wing.

The probability is very high it will go to the Liberals.

The NDP will do well in the South and West of the riding, however to win the NDP has to take polls in the North West of the riding, which generally go Liberal.

A number of current and former Liberal MPs from other ridings live in Forest Hill, and just as people in Rosedale are happy to vote for Bob Rae, the Forest Hill people will go for whoever the Liberals tell them to.

Tue, 2009-06-23 20:27

#14

adma

Interesting thing I was wondering about John Tory: might he have won Don Valley West if it were an open seat? As in, plenty of DVW voters voted the way they did simply because they deemed Wynne not worth defeating, not even for the leader of the opposition. (Same logic that almost worked for Peggy Nash vs Gerrard Kennedy, or Vivian Barbot vs Justin Trudeau...)

Wed, 2009-06-24 01:01

#15

Lord Palmerston

He might of. The schools issue I'm sure hurt him there, but Kathleen Wynne certainly was personally popular. DVW is probably the most likely seat for a Tory pickup in Toronto and it's certainly more right-leaning than St. Paul's which has more "downtown intelligentsia" spillover.

Wed, 2009-06-24 18:10

#16

Debater

adma wrote:

Interesting thing I was wondering about John Tory: might he have won Don Valley West if it were an open seat? As in, plenty of DVW voters voted the way they did simply because they deemed Wynne not worth defeating, not even for the leader of the opposition. (Same logic that almost worked for Peggy Nash vs Gerrard Kennedy, or Vivian Barbot vs Justin Trudeau...)

What do you feel is the similarity between Peggy Nash and Vivian Barbot? That they both were popular incumbents? Both of them were defeated though, so in both cases the voters still decided to replace them when a bigger name came along in each riding.

Wed, 2009-06-24 20:47

#17

adma

That's where my "almost" kicks in. (And remember that in both cases, they faced 500 pound gorilla opponents who should have made a dog's breakfast out of them.)

Wed, 2009-06-24 21:31

#18

Debater

All the analysts and parties said the races were expected to be close - as far as I know, no one was expected to win by a large margin.

In the end, Kennedy did win by several thousand votes - so he actually won by a decent margin. People were surprised at how decisively he beat Nash. As for Trudeau, the margin of victory was not as large (1200 votes) but the BQ had claimed they would be able to defeat him and they did not.

Thu, 2009-06-25 08:03

#19

adma

Debater wrote:

All the analysts and parties said the races were expected to be close - as far as I know, no one was expected to win by a large margin.

When it's a high-profile challenger versus an incumbent, it's good manner to speak in terms of "close". To take an extreme case, Alexa vs Mary Clancy was supposed to be "close" in 1997. And lest we forget, Kennedy blew his provincial opponents right out of the water in 1999 and 2003. It was assumed that he practically owned the provincial seat--why else were many New Democrats crying foul when he opted to run in the same seat federally? They knew, privately, that with Kennedy running, Nash was a likely goner--at least, without hard work and campaigning elbow grease.

Quote:
In the end, Kennedy did win by several thousand votes - so he actually won by a decent margin. People were surprised at how decisively he beat Nash. As for Trudeau, the margin of victory was not as large (1200 votes) but the BQ had claimed they would be able to defeat him and they did not.

Well, it was 43% to 36% for Kennedy, so it was still a technical "marginal". But the main reason people were surprised is because of home-stretch polls and apparent ground buzz suggesting that Peggy Nash was, indeed, winning--relative to what was assumed to be the so-called unsinkable Kennedy magic, that would have qualified as more of a surprise (though it fits the Wynne vs Tory pattern perfectly).

Fri, 2009-06-26 00:38

#20

Debater

As I mentioned, both races were considered to be close by most people, and in the end, Kennedy won by a larger margin than anyone predicted. It was also an accomplishment to win a seat in an election in which his party's share of the vote dropped dramatically. When you pick up a riding in an election in which the party is going down, that's considered an accomplishment! His was the only Liberal pickup in Ontario.

Let's give credit where credit is due.

Fri, 2009-06-26 00:48

#21

Stockholm

Since that time Kenedy has sunk without a trace and seems to have become the most low profile MP in Ottawa. i wonder if he'll even run again. By endorsing Rae the night before Rae dropped out and given the intense antipathy between Kennedy and Iggy, he has to know that if Iggy wins the next election, his chances of being appointed to anything are close to NIL.

Fri, 2009-06-26 02:12

#22

Debater

Kennedy is on the back bench - it's true. I think Ignatieff, like most leaders, probably wants to restrain those who have supported his rivals or who he views as a leadership threat. I think Ignatieff probably views Trudeau as a rival of sorts too, although Ignatieff has taken Justin to certain events with him, and Justin was given a prominent role at the leadership convention last month so he doesn't seem to be as much of a target as Kennedy is.

I think Kennedy plans to run again though - I don't think he went to all this trouble to pack it in. He is young and will probably bide his time for a few years and plan to emerge when Ignatieff is gone.

Fri, 2009-06-26 08:24

#23

adma

Debater wrote:
As I mentioned, both races were considered to be close by most people, and in the end, Kennedy won by a larger margin than anyone predicted.

Well, as per my point, he won by a larger margin than anyone predicted during the campaign and especially in the final days of the race, when it became clear that Peggy Nash was no mere pushover and, in fact, could be a giant-killer. And in general, he won by a larger margin than those within Babble, with its particular set of political biases, might have predicted. However, within the extra-Babble universe prior to the dropping of the writ, the margin which Kennedy won by was entirely predictable--maybe even narrower than expected.

And I'm not speaking as a Kennedyista, either. After all, that's a reason why New Democrats were crying foul, wondering why he didn't do "the proper thing" and retire Tonks out of York South-Weston or something...

Fri, 2009-06-26 13:43

#24

Lord Palmerston

adma wrote:
And I'm not speaking as a Kennedyista, either. After all, that's a reason why New Democrats were crying foul, wondering why he didn't do "the proper thing" and retire Tonks out of York South-Weston or something...

I was a scrutineer in P-HP on election day and I heard two people outside the polling station saying how it was a shame that both couldn't be in parliament as they were both excellent candidates.

Fri, 2009-06-26 13:54

#25

Lord Palmerston

Debater wrote:
And I agree with those above who say that John Tory probably wouldn't have had a strong chance in this seat anyway considering what happened to him the last time he ran in a Toronto seat and the fact that the Cons have no seats in the 416 federally or provincially.

John Tory wouldn't have had a chance in St. Paul's. I don't think St. Paul's is winnable for the Tories anymore period, they have been averaging about 25 percent in recent elections. It is as safe a Liberal seat at this point as Mount Royal is. Don Valley West has seen them hit around 40 percent and I think is winnable in the right circumstances. Although both are affluent ridings, DVW is more suburban nouveau-riche and more "managerial class" while St. Paul's has Annex-y bits in the southwest and intelligentsia types, etc.

Fri, 2009-06-26 15:49

#26

Debater

Lord Palmerston wrote:

I was a scrutineer in P-HP on election day and I heard two people outside the polling station saying how it was a shame that both couldn't be in parliament as they were both excellent candidates.

Interesting. On the CTV Election Night coverage on Oct 14, that's exactly what Paula Todd said in her intro piece on Parkdale-High Park. She contrasted it with the other high-profile race they were covering in Papineau (Trudeau vs. Barbot) and said that unlike in that riding where the voters either love or hate the candidates, in P-HP it was a story of the voters loving 2 candidates and having to choose between them. Your comment validates exactly what Todd was saying!

Fri, 2009-06-26 20:16

#27

adma

Debater wrote:
Interesting. On the CTV Election Night coverage on Oct 14, that's exactly what Paula Todd said in her intro piece on Parkdale-High Park. She contrasted it with the other high-profile race they were covering in Papineau (Trudeau vs. Barbot) and said that unlike in that riding where the voters either love or hate the candidates, in P-HP it was a story of the voters loving 2 candidates and having to choose between them. Your comment validates exactly what Todd was saying!

Though I suspect the Papineau case is qualified by federalist vs separatist politics.

However imperfect, another case in this overall vein presently being discussed might be Jack Layton vs Dennis Mills in 2004...

Sat, 2009-06-27 00:26

#28

Debater

adma wrote:

And I'm not speaking as a Kennedyista, either. After all, that's a reason why New Democrats were crying foul, wondering why he didn't do "the proper thing" and retire Tonks out of York South-Weston or something...

Well Parkdale-High Park is the riding that Kennedy represented provincially, so it makes sense that he would run there federally. It's not as if he was running in a riding he had no connection too.

It is true that there are some people who would prefer not to lose strong women MP's like Nash, although I know those who feel the same about Marilyn Churley running against Maria Minna in Beaches-East York. Some Liberal women feel Churley should be running against one of the male Liberal MP's in the Toronto area (of which there are many) rather than trying to take out one of the only women MP's in Toronto.

These things are a judgment call though and a matter of opinion. I guess what's interesting though is that many of these races, whether it's a man vs. a woman or a woman vs. a woman, raise issues of gender and other subjects.

Sat, 2009-06-27 09:37

#29

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Debater wrote:

It is true that there are some people who would prefer not to lose strong women MP's like Nash, although I know those who feel the same about Marilyn Churley running against Maria Minna in Beaches-East York. Some Liberal women feel Churley should be running against one of the male Liberal MP's in the Toronto area (of which there are many) rather than trying to take out one of the only women MP's in Toronto.

That might have been an interesting point - if we ever heard a peep out of Maria Minna between elections.

Sat, 2009-06-27 17:52

#30

Debater

Well I guess it's a moot point for the moment since Maria Minna has won twice over Marilyn Churley now, but Churley was asked some questions about why she was running against a woman MP instead of a male MP. Svend Robinson also got some criticism from the LGBT community when he ran against Hedy Fry in Vancouver Centre a few years ago because Hedy is a pro-gay pro-SSM MP and some people wanted him to run against an anti-gay MP instead.

Having said that, politics is politics - and everyone is ultimately allowed to run against whom they want, whether that person is a man or a woman or a gay man etc.

Sat, 2009-06-27 20:27

#31

adma

Though keep in mind that the gender issue didn't come to mind when I made my Kennedy vs Nash or Trudeau vs Barbot race judgment--just as in the end, despite murmurs here and there, neither gender nor sexual orientation had much bearing on the Tory vs Wynne race...

Sat, 2009-06-27 21:10

#32

Debater

Not in the Tory vs Wynne race, I agree, but those issues were brought up by the media and party workers in the other races mentioned.

Sun, 2009-06-28 07:42

#33

adma

I really don't know if it was any more significant in the other races, in fact; if not the gender issue, part of me seems to recall the orientation issue rising re Tory vs Wynne. (Albeit not obviously centrally, more in the overzealously partisan dirty-trickster sense.)

And given how this is Babble, when it comes to "party workers", it may be more difficult to get a proper picture in a race where (as in DVW, as opposed to PHP) neither of the primary contenders are NDP.

Sun, 2009-06-28 09:08

#34

Wilf Day

Lord Palmerston wrote:
I was a scrutineer in P-HP on election day and I heard two people outside the polling station saying how it was a shame that both couldn't be in parliament as they were both excellent candidates.

In this example, as in the discussions above of Don Valley West and Beaches - East York, we see once again how brutal a winner-take-all system is, as well as undemocratic. In most democracies you have more than one representative accountable to an area. The obvious alternative, as most recently described in loving detail by Quebec's Chief Electoral Officer, is a regional mixed compensatory system (MMP to anglophones) with the voter able to choose which regional candidate to vote for (open list or flexible list -- both the Jenkins Commission and the Law Commission of Canada recommended flexible lists, which may matter now that the Jenkins Commission has found a new lease on life in the UK.)

In short, such star candidates as John Tory in DVW, Marilyn Churley in B-EY, and Peggy Nash in P-HP would have been at the top of, or risen to the top of, Toronto voters' preferences across the city. In the last Ontario election Toronto PC voters would have elected five regional MPPs, including John Tory, and the PC Party would not have been reduced to Wal-Mart's assistant manager from Fort Erie (not that I have anything against Fort Erie). And Kathleen Wynne would still have been the local MPP. She understands all this perfectly: she was a member of Ontario's Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Similarly, assuming the NDP got enough votes to elect a couple of additional regional MPs from Toronto, I expect Peggy Nash and Marilyn Churley would have been at, or risen to, the top of the list.

Is this yesterday's issue? But winner-take-all continues to give Canadians unworkable parliaments. As the former minister Marie Bountrogianni agreed this February, electoral reform is “unfinished business” in Ontario. And in Canada.

Sun, 2009-06-28 17:07

#35

Debater

Is Marilyn Churley planning to run again in Beaches-East York? She has been unsuccessful twice now, so I am just curious.

I also find that she tends to attribute too much of her loss to strategic voting - in an interview after the last federal election I heard her say that she lost because of strategic voting, but I don't think that's really the case. The Conservatives aren't in contention in B-EY as it is a Liberal vs NDP riding. It appears to be that people just prefer to vote Liberal over NDP (or Minna over Churley) there.

Sun, 2009-06-28 17:18

#36

KenS

Liberals and others promote "strategic voting" as if it is riding specific. Sometimes voters pay attention, sometimes they don't in any measurable way at all. When it does have an effect, the biggest way it manifests is for more people to vote Liberal, period. Which they do for example in SK seats where the Liberals are third, and the effect is to help the Cons. Let alone what happens in a 2 way Lib-NDP race like B-EY.

But we've argued about "strategic voting" ad nauseum here, and I doubt anyone wants to return to it. So how about we just take it as there is definitely not a view here that it is what you think it is. If Churley raised it, fine. Duly noted. Its still a massive red herring.

Sun, 2009-06-28 18:19

#37

Debater

I guess the main point I was making about Churley wasn't strategic voting, but a tendency to blame others for her defeats in the previous 2 elections. I think if she is to be successful in the future she needs to move away from doing that and adopt a different strategy.

Sun, 2009-06-28 19:58

#38

KenS

Losing sticks to a candidate. Being a poor sport after an election is forgotten in an eye blink [and isn't part of or associated with a strategy].

Sun, 2009-06-28 20:36

#39

Debater

Being a poor sport is not always forgotten, and claiming strategic voting is responsible for the results in Beaches-East York has been central to Churley's campaigns. Rather than perhaps acknowledge that people prefer Minna to her or prefer voting Liberal to NDP, she insists she ran a "perfect campaign".

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081014/election200...

It is also insulting to the voters in Beaches-East York for Churley to always say that the reason they vote for Minna is because they have been told to do so strategically rather than failing to acknowledge that some people there may actually like their MP. I realize that Marilyn Churley is a friend of Jack Layton's who he has strongly wanted to get into Parliament with him, but this type of approach is not helpful.

I don't understand why Churley left the Provincial legislature. She was a good MPP there and I liked her, but her entry into federal politics has been plagued with errors so far.

Sun, 2009-06-28 20:52

#40

adma

One problem is that BEY is a more awkward fit for her than her provincial T-D bulwark: over there, they like a little more Prue-vian pragmatism in their New Democrats--barring that, they'll settle for Minna.

Also, I think a bit of a "sore loser" mark stuck onto Churley following the 2006 election, when she pointed blame at Mayor Miller for declining to specifically endorse her, and IIRC even threatened to run or at least campaign against him in that year's mayoral election...

Sun, 2009-06-28 22:15

#41

Stockholm

"It is also insulting to the voters in Beaches-East York for Churley to always say that the reason they vote for Minna is because they have been told to do so strategically rather than failing to acknowledge that some people there may actually like their MP."

I for one refuse to acknowledge that there are more than a few people (ie: Minna immediate family a personal friends) who actually think anything of Maria Minna. She is an extremely low profile MP who has never accomplished a single thing in her political career. People just vote for her because she is the generic Liberal candidate.

Sun, 2009-06-28 22:48

#42

Lord Palmerston

I agree - Minna's margin of victory was too great to suggest that it was her personal popularity that carried her through. I also think Marilyn Churley's "star candidate" appeal was exaggerated - she didn't do really much better than Peter Tabuns did in '04 even though it was widely believed - rightly or wrongly - that he ran a poor campaign. Demographic changes in the Beaches may have put the riding out of reach for the NDP.

Mon, 2009-06-29 04:41

#43

Debater

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Minna's margin of victory was too great to suggest that it was her personal popularity that carried her through.

So if you have personal popularity, you win by a small margin? Doesn't seem logical. Personally popular candidates often win by large margins (eg. Maxime Bernier in Beauce).

What's interesting is that Minna won by an even larger margin in 2008 than she did in 2006 despite the fact that the Liberal vote collapsed in Ontario last year. That indicates personal popularity to me.

Mon, 2009-06-29 08:28

#44

adma

Lord Palmerston wrote:

I agree - Minna's margin of victory was too great to suggest that it was her personal popularity that carried her through. I also think Marilyn Churley's "star candidate" appeal was exaggerated - she didn't do really much better than Peter Tabuns did in '04 even though it was widely believed - rightly or wrongly - that he ran a poor campaign. Demographic changes in the Beaches may have put the riding out of reach for the NDP.

If it were truly out of reach, Prue wouldn't hold it provincially. My feeling is that the NDP simply hasn't figured out how to translate that provincial electoral formula federally without being out-manouvred by the Liberals. And when it comes to Churley, along with other factors, I think there was a bit of the "shopworn" malaise that plagued Waddell, Nystrom etc.

And when it comes to 2008, there's two additional factors to consider: the May-led Greens (which factored in '06 too, of course--Jim Harris being the candidate--but in '08, they seemed to actually being outsigning Churley in certain neighbourhoods at a critical point in the campaign); and the Liberals' "Rae Democrat" urban-left strategy.

With that under consideration, it's worth noting that if you compare 04-06-08 polling results, Churley in '06 vastly improved on Tabuns in the "Beaches" half of the riding--what killed her is that she was flat or ceded some ground in Prue's East York beachhold. While in '08, she improved in East York--yet collapsed in the Beaches...

Mon, 2009-06-29 11:01

#45

Lord Palmerston

Debater wrote:
So if you have personal popularity, you win by a small margin? Doesn't seem logical. Personally popular candidates often win by large margins (eg. Maxime Bernier in Beauce).

What's interesting is that Minna won by an even larger margin in 2008 than she did in 2006 despite the fact that the Liberal vote collapsed in Ontario last year. That indicates personal popularity to me.

Toronto is a Liberal city and the vast majority of MPs win simply based on that fact.

Mon, 2009-06-29 11:12

#46

Lord Palmerston

adma wrote:
And when it comes to 2008, there's two additional factors to consider: the May-led Greens (which factored in '06 too, of course--Jim Harris being the candidate--but in '08, they seemed to actually being outsigning Churley in certain neighbourhoods at a critical point in the campaign); and the Liberals' "Rae Democrat" urban-left strategy.

With that under consideration, it's worth noting that if you compare 04-06-08 polling results, Churley in '06 vastly improved on Tabuns in the "Beaches" half of the riding--what killed her is that she was flat or ceded some ground in Prue's East York beachhold. While in '08, she improved in East York--yet collapsed in the Beaches...

More evidence of the "Rae Democrat urban-left strategy": in Trinity-Spadina the Libs improved their vote a bit in the Annex. I assume the carbon tax was popular among the "champagne socialist" crowd.

Mon, 2009-06-29 15:57

#47

Debater

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Debater wrote:
So if you have personal popularity, you win by a small margin? Doesn't seem logical. Personally popular candidates often win by large margins (eg. Maxime Bernier in Beauce).

What's interesting is that Minna won by an even larger margin in 2008 than she did in 2006 despite the fact that the Liberal vote collapsed in Ontario last year. That indicates personal popularity to me.

Toronto is a Liberal city and the vast majority of MPs win simply based on that fact.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that in some of the closer ridings between the Liberals and NDP like Beaches-East York that the popularity of the incumbent isn't relevant. Stockholm said above that he refuses to believe that Minna has any popularity of her own, but I don't think that's the case. I have seen voters who have said they like her because of things she has done for them or meetings they have had with her.

Maria Minna is also an immigrant woman and is popular with some of the immigrant communities in the riding where she has made contacts and had an impact.

Mon, 2009-06-29 16:28

#48

KenS

Debater wrote:
I have seen voters who have said they like her because of things she has done for them or meetings they have had with her.

Even an MP lazy with constituency work can claim lots of people who love you for that. The question is how much of that an MP has. And I rather doubt you have your ear sufficiently close to the ground in the area to make a useful assessment on that.

Mon, 2009-06-29 22:03

#49

adma

Lord Palmerston wrote:
More evidence of the "Rae Democrat urban-left strategy": in Trinity-Spadina the Libs improved their vote a bit in the Annex. I assume the carbon tax was popular among the "champagne socialist" crowd.

And even I was surprised by the amount of Innes signage in Jane Jacobs country--I guess a Margaret Atwood endorsement can get you a long way.

Somehow, my feeling is that the champagne socialists found Layton's running-for-Prime-Minister schtick a little too crass for comfort, even if it cinched the North and solidified his Hamilton/London seats. (I noticed that elsewhere, too, the NDP tended to hold their vote better in low-income zones, while the more Richard Floridian areas swung more Liberal/Greenward.)

Tue, 2009-06-30 01:11

#50

Debater

adma wrote:

And even I was surprised by the amount of Innes signage in Jane Jacobs country--I guess a Margaret Atwood endorsement can get you a long way.

I was surprised at how well Christine Innes did in Trinity-Spadina too, considering she took over the Liberal nomination at the last minute when Tony Ianno puled out. I was expecting Chow to win by a larger margin.

If the Liberals do better in Ontario in the next election and get their act together in that riding, they might actually contend for the seat next time around.

Tue, 2009-06-30 02:00

#51

Lord Palmerston

Olivia Chow won by the same margin as last time - 3500 votes. Both the NDP and Libs saw their vote percentages drop, as the race seemed less polarized as the Chow-Ianno matchups and people felt freer to vote Green or Tory. My feeling is quite a few "Martin Liberals" in the condos and in the Admiral Rd./"West Yorkville" pocket went Tory this time, while the Greens ate into the "creative class" NDP vote while Dion might have gotten some of the pro-carbon tax NDP vote as well.

Christine Innes was quite visible in T-S, while her provincial Liberal counterpart was almost invisible in 2007.

Pages

Topic locked