Another Toronto municipal election thread

You've got a good point about Etobicoke Lakeshore. In any case, Patrick Boyer has got the lock on the Tory nomination for forever, and an interloper like Ford would be chased north of Dundas.

While he'd have a better shot at Etobicoke Centre, Axel Kuhn has a nice little rivalry going with Boris Wrzesnwskyj and he's not going to give that up any time soon. Kuhn can point that he's narrowed the gap with Boris to just over 10% last time and send Ford on his way.

Etobicoke North would seem to offer the most prospects for Ford, with a revolving door of Tory candidates in the last few elections and thus no established candidate angry at an interloper. However, the riding has changed substantially even since Doug Ford's time. The Liberals were able to very effectively get out the vote (Italians, Ukranians, Punjabis, etc.) last time around even with a parachute candidate like Kirsty Duncan, and she's continuing the tradition of building strong links with these communities. Ford would grab a large share of soft Tories, but I'm guessing he'd turn off as many as he'd win over.

Thinking upon it, he'd get hammered anywhere in Etobicoke, really. The Liberals are just too strong.

edmundoconnor wrote:

Etobicoke North would seem to offer the most prospects for Ford, with a revolving door of Tory candidates in the last few elections and thus no established candidate angry at an interloper. However, the riding has changed substantially even since Doug Ford's time. The Liberals were able to very effectively get out the vote (Italians, Ukranians, Punjabis, etc.) last time around even with a parachute candidate like Kirsty Duncan, and she's continuing the tradition of building strong links with these communities. Ford would grab a large share of soft Tories, but I'm guessing he'd turn off as many as he'd win over.

Though considering the recent record (and even accounting for Duncan's parachute stigma), for CPC to hit the 30% mark last time was quite good, indeed--and remember how Rob Ford's been surprisingly solidly reelected twice over in spite of the demographic shift.  True, municipal turnout tends to be miserable and incumbent-favouring via autopilot; but still, I suspect that however ironic this may sound, Ford's got a certain anti-elite draw among the "little guy" ethnic class as well.  Maybe not enough to win; but enough to hope, however quixotically.

Look at it this way: he'd turn off as many as he'd win over anywhere, at least within the 416.  But he has the most "chance" (of bearing the standard, if not of winning) wherever there's the fewest pointy-headed elites.  Kind of analogous to the old Communist/National Front electoral synergy within inpoverished Parisian suburbs...

aka the prov pcs had fords father as an mpp so i guess this would be a 2nd generaton mpp sort of like others who have graced the leg

Lord Palmerston wrote:

 

I don't understand why "Italians and Ukrainians" are included as part of the demographic changes that supposedly hurt Rob Ford and the Conservatives, given that those communities have lived in Etobicoke long before Rob Ford was first elected to office.

And I agree that Etobicoke North probably has more of the "Toronto Sun" demographic than anywhere else in the 416 at this point (Sue Ann Levy's Sun affiliation probably made her too "low Tory" for the burghers of St. Paul's).

I should clarify. There have been significant demographic changes in the riding (a large number of Somalis in the southern part, for example) but no-one has been able to reel these new ethnic groups in and get them to vote for them en masse (or vote at all, in some cases). At least, not yet.

The Italians and Ukranians have been there for a long time, but the Liberals have become experts at making links with these communities, and many voters in the riding vote Liberal without having to even think twice about it. While this could well hurt Ford, even the make-up of the established areas of the riding is changing, as parents either die or move into retirement homes. It`s not the factor it was, but it could still hurt him.

And not to get too off-off topic, but I think there hasn`t been a riding created that Sue-Ann could have won. While her low Toryism would have got applause in a relatively conservative riding like Etobicoke North, some eyebrows would have been raised when they heard mention of her wife …

I  don't agree with the 'waspy' at all, but fluent command of the english language is a preference on my part. It's not my primary concern, but all else being equal, I would take it into consideration. Is there a problem with this?

Oh joy. Looks like TTC workers are going to annoy people into voting for right-wingers.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/ttc-employees-poised-to-work-to-rule-after-being-told-to-shape-up/article1459501/

Quote:

I  don't agree with the 'waspy' at all, but fluent command of the english language is a preference on my part. It's not my primary concern, but all else being equal, I would take it into consideration. Is there a problem with this?

Joe has an accent. As do most people that Anglophones quickly dismiss as not having "fluent command of the english langauge".

Quote:

I suppose that the only possible good that can come of this (and this is 1% chance of happening) is if Giambrone goes on the attack against the TTC workers union for suggesting something so absurd - and it gives him his "Sister Souljah" moment and gets to show that he is willing to stand up to the union if needs be.

The union has nothing to do with this action. It seems to be the initiative of some transit operators. Those workers might not have the election of your favored brand of candidate for mayor in mind as their primary concern. Typical of your ilk of NDPer, you take labour's support for granted while backhanding them under your breath to 'broaden the tent'.

I can only imagine the abuse that TTC employes have been taking from a self-rightous, anti-labour public whipped into a frenzy by media making big noise about two incedences. Most TTC employees are really good. People like to talk about the one bad interaction that they had with a ticket-taker or bus driver. These same people don't even acknowledge the employees that do a good job. The people who drive buses and take tickets are not robots or slaves.

Quote:

As do a very large percentage of voters.

Which is just one of the reasons that it is odd that accents make Toronto mayoral candidates less 'electable'...

Le T wrote:

I can only imagine the abuse that TTC employes have been taking from a self-rightous, anti-labour public whipped into a frenzy by media making big noise about two incedences. Most TTC employees are really good. People like to talk about the one bad interaction that they had with a ticket-taker or bus driver. These same people don't even acknowledge the employees that do a good job. The people who drive buses and take tickets are not robots or slaves.

I'm sure the abuse goes both ways. I've witnessed TTC employees putting up with a lot of shit, but I've also witnessed a lot of TTC employees treating the public with total indifference verging on contempt. Whatever the case may be, I would like to know what the strategy is for having a wild cat work to rule campaign? What exactly is that supposed to accomplish? Let's say hypothetically the TTC employees decide to go on a "work to rule" campaign of refusing to offer assistance to anyone and purposely doing their jobs as slowly as possible - in what way is that supposed to make me have a more favourable opinion of them???

I'm sorry but from a purely strategic perspective, this is an unwinnable issue for the TTC employees. The way the public sees it is that we the public pay to use the system every time we pay a fare and through our taxes. The employees, when all is said and done are paid to be be there. People will always expect a higher standard of behaviour from the providers of a service than they do from the users of a service.

How old is Sewell now? I know he was first elected in 1969 so I'm guessing that he must be close to 80?

Seven candidates now for Ward 27. If more candidates join the fray, anyone with any sort of organization, volunteers, charisma and ideas is going to have a decent shot. I should declare I know Susan Gapka, so take my opinion with that in mind.

Interestingly, Rob Ford has not declared yet if he's running again in Ward 2. Is he seriously considering going for Mayor? How late do sitting councillors generally leave it until declaring their candidacies?

*Facepalm*

The number of levels on which this was dumb is simply staggering. Giambrone seemingly didn't know when to stop digging.

They might as well measure Smitherman for his ermine and robes right now.

Waitaminite...a 19 year-old?  They made it sound on the news this morning like she was underage or something.  They didn't say "underage" but they kept really emphasizing "young".

If she was 19, then it's nobody's fucking business.  Are we really going to become like the US, where people give a shit about adultery and crap like that?  Who gave a damn when Mike Harris was carrying on with Sharon Dunn, besides Frank Magazine?  Was it widely reported by the mainstream media at the time?

Looks like the only thing that might be even remotely the public's business is that he told her about the fare increase before it was publicly announced.  Big deal.

I mean, he treated her badly, I agree.  And yes, it's sleazy to cheat - although it's not clear here who he was cheating on - which was the real relationship, the one with his "partner" or the one with this person?  Sounds like he was saying his "partner" is just around for window dressing.

But I guess the point is - does it affect his ability to do the job?  Clearly not.

Sure, it's juicy and interesting, but when it comes right down to it...who cares?  He had an affair.  Big whoop.  Welcome to the real world, where politicians (and lots of other people) cheat on their partners.

"But I guess the point is - does it affect his ability to do the job?  Clearly not."

1. It seriously effects his viability as the primary candidate of the left in this mayoral election. Since Toronto has no formal party system, however, he can withdraw and let somebody else take over. This will avoid vote-splitting on the left.

2. The affair clearly did affect his ability to do his job because he gave Ms. Lucas information she was not privy to.

3. While affairs are personal matters, they sometimes tell us about the personal characteristics of a prospective leader. I don't think it is irrelevant when politicians act dishonestly, or when they treat people as objects (eg. describing one's partner as window-dressing). Participating in an affair (and seemingly persisting till just before a mayoral election) also reflects a high threshold for risk-taking, that may not be what one wants in a mayor. The affair doesn't necessarily impact Giambrone's ability to be mayor, but it could reasonably affect one's judgment of whether he is the man we thought him to be. Elections are not just about platform planks - a lot of governing involves responding to unexpected issues that could not have been debated beforehand (eg. Jean Chretien could not have said "vote for me because in 2003 I will say no to the Iraq war" in 2000). Personal characteristics and ideological signalling are some of the few tools we have to predict how such a leader would act.

4. The fact that there may or may not have been a double-standard in the treatment of Mike Harris and Adam Giambrone is trouble, but irrelevant. Actually I think the main difference is that in this case the aggrieved party (or one of them) went public in a very big way. When Julie Couillard went public about Bernier's briefs there was, similarly, a media feeding frenzy.

I wonder:  what if Giambrone didn't have an affair, but instead his partner went public with text messages criticizing her weight, praising other women, and referring to her as "the battle-axe" or "the ball and chain"?

Would that speak to his ability to do the job?  I don't think so.  Is it illegal?  I'm pretty sure it's not. 

But I would expect a lot of women to be a little less likely to vote for him.  Personally, Giambrone's affair isn't the biggest piece of news I'll hear all day, but I can understand if some people believe that his ethics outside of work are the best indicator of his ethics on the job.  If nothing else, this demonstrates a certain political cynicism on his part. 

If he's willing to perpetuate a hollow relationship because it has good political "optics" then I think anything he says can be taken with a grain of salt.  What [i]wouldn't[/i] he do to get elected? 

Oh, I know, Olly - it was a pretty dumb thing to do.  But hey - lots of us are dumb when it comes to affairs of the heart. :)

Yes, of course people want to know.  Heck, I'm as interested as the next person in what will happen next!  But while it's interesting gossip, I probably wouldn't change my vote over it, if I were planning to vote for him in the first place.  (I'm not sure who I'm voting for yet - but this won't influence my decision, unless something of substance develops in the story.)  As skdadl says, most people's personal correspondence probably wouldn't hold up to scrutiny on the front page of the Star.

For a time, I was really shocked by the reaction of lefty Merkin friends online to the revelations about John Edwards. I tried holding the line for a while because I just couldn't see why it should matter to anyone but the people involved. I didn't think people had the right, eg, to condescend to Elizabeth Edwards by pitying her -- who knows how she felt, what she knew, what she'd agreed to? No one ever really will, and no one deserves to. Marriages are like that.

But then, as we say, the guy kept digging. I was wishing he would just tell the press to fork off from the start, and if he'd done that, I would still be arguing for him. But he did the sentimental confessional thing, except only half-honestly, and then he got caught in further lies and tried to cover those up, and it all just kept tumbling on. At some point you start to think, maybe this guy really doesn't have a centre, and that could be trouble. I think it's a great shame, but he managed things spectacularly badly, and that eventually influences my judgement.

As for Lucas, I think she's as poisonous as Couillard. This was a rotten thing for her to do; I don't see that she has any defence at all. If she was in any way personally wronged before, she scuttled any ounce of sympathy I might have had for her by going the celebrity-scandal route. Enjoy your fifteen minutes, crass person.

Personally, I'm not a huge Giambrone fan so don't take this as partisanship but... what the hell? Smitherman essentially gave a billion dollars away to rich people for doing nothing. I have yet to see this criminal act tied to his name in any of his mayoral raw-raw pieces in the Star. Giambrone gets caught fucking and it is presumed that he is finished.

So to be mayor of Toronto you better be a man, white, good looking (broadly interpreted), monogamous (or precieved as such), have un-accented English, and agree with the idea that "the Transit Union is holding the city hostage"?

Queen Victoria wants her fucking era back Toronto!

Stockholm wrote:

That being said, the most damaging thing about this is not that he was having the affair (so much for all those rumours about him being gay - obviously everyone was barking up the wrong tree!!), but the fact that he comes across in the story as immature and ruthlessly opportunistic what with saying that his wife/partner is just there for political reasons and for the campaign etc...

Absolutely. The affair is a personal embarrassment with public consequences, but the apparent contrivance of his politically expedient relationship makes him appear ridiculous and calculating. That's a lethal combination. He's done, and as you say, better now than later. If he doesn't withdraw and salvage some dignity, and learn from this experience how to be a better politician by being a more integrated human being, he's destined to be the Nunziata of the race.

Stockholm wrote:

First of all, i agree with Michelle that the way this was reported made it sound like he was a pedophile engaged in a inappropriate relationship with someone underage.

The Star's headline referred to her as a "young woman", nothing misleading there.

Usually I'm inclined to say "so what?" and deem it a personal matter, but at the same time, this is about an elected official being incredibly dumb. I can't help but think that's somewhat relevant to the voting public, even if this stupidity is related to their personal life.

And there are more serious or relevant issues here too. There's the disclosing "top secret" information about the TTC - which is kind of silly but then again the TTC certainly took the fare increase very (excessively) seriously. Also on a serious note (no, really), I'd be careful if Giambrone ever offered me to take a seat in his office:

Quote:

In recent interviews with the Star, Lucas said she's been involved with Giambrone since late 2008 and, on several occasions, had sex late at night on a couch in his City Hall office.

Eww.

Which also raises the question of what kind of atmosphere that creates in the workplace if anyone ever knew (well, they know now).

We can spend a lot of time debating whether the Star reported the story correctly.  That's not the point.  For me there is one thing and one thing only.  Not the affair-- Who cares it is the stupidity of it.  When are these people going to learn Hell has not fury as a women scorned,  And man too frankly.

Giambrone's behaviour was incredibly dumb and only reinforces the impression that he's immature. Added to it is a rather manipulative attitude towards people (in this case either Ms Lucas or Ms McQuarrie or both). And for god's sake if you are a politician having an affair don't do it over facebook, email and text messages. That's just boneheaded.

Well, one is breaking the law and putting people at risk of getting killed, and the other isn't.