Mission 2015: Convert Conservative Voters

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

Sure there might be some implicit attacks on other groups, but for the most part they are left unsaid. Lewis' corporate welfare bums rallying cry was about the only time in my memory that the NDP went negative in that way and while it returned a highwater mark of seats, given the times (and I was there) they should have been able to do much better and it was not very long after that Lewis lost his own seat and the NDP was greatly reduced in parliament in (was it) 75 (I forget), so there was no long term gain out of that negative campaigning.  (Or it turns out sucking up to the Liberals Mr. Dobbin)

Wasn't that about the time that what is now the Canadian Council of Chief Executives formed? As I understand that history, the goal was to remove the NDP from having the balance of power so that the Liberals could do Bay Street's bidding without interruption. That was followed by wage and price controls, and we all know how well that ended for the Liberals in 1979.

So we shouldn't stand up too courageously or directly to Bay Street or they'll make a more concerted attack on progressives? Surely that can't be what you mean. I must be misinterpreting this post.

johnpauljones wrote:

to focus on seniors will lead to failure -- simply not a large enough group of voters to target. Seniors traditionally are conservative-liberal and rarely go NDP.  In fact bringing up the fact about NDP universal healthcare may do harm since it was a Lib gov't that brought it in nationally not the NDP.

Actually it was Emmett Hall's report that formed the basis of our medicare and he was appointed by Diefenbaker.  They were both from Saskatchewan. Dief also introduced progressive changes in other areas like the Bill of Rights, that the courts emasculated. There is a bust of Hall in the law library at the U of S.

What the message should be is that a consensus on helping each other has always existed in Canada and the current Conservative party is the one that has no roots in our political tradition.  The generation that is in the nursing homes is the generation that all agreed that medicare and unemployment insurance and CPP were needed to make us a better society.  I know that because my parents where Diefenbaker Tories and were proud of his role in health care and UI etc etc. My Aunts and Uncles also agreed and they were all Liberals.  That is why Hall's report passed so easily in the H of C.  Every party ran on a expansion of government platform in the late 50's early 60's.  And it led to the most prosperous period in our history. 

http://www.canada-heros.com/hall_emmett.html

johnpauljones wrote:

as far as targets go. you go after the group that you have the best chance of the best results. therefore it is the 30 and under crowd.

Great room to grow in that crowd.  But the active and aware ones seem to be currently Occupied with other things not electoral politics.  The NDP so far has not been able to connect with that demographic to the extent that they would bother going to a voting booth in great enough numbers to elect them. Maybe the incremental approach that is required to attract the stable family people in their 40's and 50's (who mostly do vote) leaves young people cold and unenthused.  Squaring that circle is part of the problem. The more you try to be all things to all people the less vibrant your message gets for any specific demographic.

theleftyinvestor wrote:

But plenty of farmers who wanted to keep the board were certainly already Conservative voters for other policy reasons.

For Long-gun-registry reasons, to be specific, TLI. It was that powerful an issue.

I think the Conservatives will try and come up with some new hot buttons. But I notice that the gun folks are now pushing to eliminate the other registries and the firearms acquisition certificates next. Given that they were the entire underpinning of the Conservatives' argument for why the long-gun registry should go, I wonder if that will be a bridge too far for the government.

Every farmer may own a rifle but not many of them have semi automatic machine gun pistols.  There is no base of support in Canada for the American tea party model of a gun on every citizens hip. Harper is an extremely guileful politician so unless there is a reward in it for him, that we don't see, why would he bother?

Uncle John wrote:

Here are some things the NDP would have to overcome in order to attract Conservatives:

• Conservative Monarchism, Patriotism, and Militarism.
• Conservative contempt for unions, especially in the public sector. A popular Conservative meme now is to outlaw all unions completely (Kevin O'Leary on CBC).
• Conservative contempt for people on social assistance, panhandlers, homeless people, public sector workers, Occupy demonstrators, etc.
• Unconditional Conservative support for Free Enterprise, and general Conservative contempt for taxes, social programs and government in general (except of course police, and the Armed Forces).
• Thinly veiled Conservative contempt for immigrants, and increasingly shrill rhetoric against Sharia Law.

I am not sure that the NDP would even want to compromise with this.

Dear god, just shoot me in the face.

Uncle John wrote:

The problem is that a lot of Conservative voters have values which are completely opposed to those found on this discussion board and in the NDP.

There's a difference between conservatives and Conservative voters, who are not necessarily fans of all of the above.

I agree with the last two points, and would add that most voters are not internally ideologically consistent in the way political junkies or political scientists think they might be. At various times both the NDP and the Reform Party have been the populist choice from the west -- and from many of the same voters.

One note to Jerry M - I believe the BC Conservative Party is lately showing higher than 12%. It's a major reason Christy Clark got seriously cold feet about calling an election and instead launched an attack website against Cummins. I bet the BC Liberals' internal polls showed the BC Conservatives growing substantially, and mostly at their expense seatwise.

ottawaobserver wrote:

I agree with the last two points, and would add that most voters are not internally ideologically consistent in the way political junkies or political scientists think they might be. At various times both the NDP and the Reform Party have been the populist choice from the west -- and from many of the same voters.

I agree with this 100%. I think it's something we often forget when we're planning our campaign strategies because it seems so counterintuitive to political junkies and ideologues, but there really are an awful lot of voters like that.

The other thing that's at play at least in Alberta is that there are a lot of voters who just want to vote for a winner and don't think about things much beyond that. These people won't consider voting NDP unless we seem like a sure thing, but once we do, they will shift their votes as a matter of rote and see no inconsistency in it. (It would be hard to measure just how many voters there were who voted for Rahim Jaffer in 2008 and Linda Duncan in 2011 because "oh, sure, she's going to win anyway," but we know from the doorstep that we're not just talking about a handful of people.)

I lied, I have one more idea I'd express now.

Food for thought:  Food.

Food is going to be the issue that bridges the rural/urban divide.  People in cities want good healthy food these days, and increasingly, people want to have a sense of connection between their food and the people who grow/raise/catch it. 

The Conservative Party will represent the supply chain that gives us produce from Mexico and California, produce that on a weekly basis, has some health scare or recall or some problem with it.  Grown by people we don't know, and therefore have less of a connection to and less trust in thier standards.

The NDP has to, really really has to, champion the ideas that have been encompased with the catch all "Hundred Mile Diet". 

It's good for city folk, and good for farmers. 

We could be the party that transcends the urban rural divide.

Hope I'm not banned for this post...I'm a person who has voted both NDP and Conservative provincially...in Manitoba...I never saw an enormous difference between the parties.  I'm not a social conservative, but an economic and law and order one, and I voted according to how I viewed issues of competence, corruption, the economy, and the like.  I'm in BC now, where the difference between the parties is greater, but I could see myself voting NDP if I think the provincial Liberals are hopelessly corrupt and incompetent (as you can easily argue that they are)....

One poster, above, said this: "But maybe we should ask *why* these are the core values of a key Conservative voting bloc. Were all these voters born with these views? Did they evolve through careful manipulation by well-moneyed interests?"

I find this really off-putting.  I don't think my view evolved through "careful manipulation by well-moneyed interests" any more than rabblers' views evolved through careful manipulation by agents of marxist states.  I'd like to think that we all arrived at our views through careful assessment of the issues.  Perhaps we are both wrong.  In any case, such patronizing would not endear me to a party of the Left...

"You have to admit that there are a lot of partizan type conservative "Big Lies" out there that don't get examined, precisly because the media, for the most part, wants to perpetuate them."

I do admit it. I think there are fantasies on all sides of the political spectrum that need to be examined..

"I'm listening to what you're saying, Tommy, but lately it's occurred to me that running against corruption risks activating the instinct in those conservative-minded voters to want to "punish" those concerned, which activates a law and order mentality, which activates a Conservative vote. I think you're trying to encourage some form of cognitive dissonance to break those traditional associations, but I wonder if that would work."

Oh, I think there is a huge popular appetite for "law and order" for political corruption and white collar crime.  And I think it wouldn't work if you were trying to pry loose Conservative voters during a Liberal administration.  But now the Conservatives are in power, people would see them not doing anything on that score, so their supporters couldn't look to them as the party that will clean up Ottawa.

In fact it already resonates with people of all walks when you point out that the Tory "tough on crime" bill somehow missed white collar crime and political corruption. 

Now, in purist ideology, you run up against those in the party and others on the left who will look at this as validation of the Tory "tough on crime" bill, that we shouldn't be jailing anyone. And, in my own ideology I prefer restitution to punishment, and restrictions on liberty that would prevent a re-ocurrance, which may not allways mean jail.  However, I am trying to play the ball where it lies, and not where I would want it to be.

The NDP wouldn't lose votes by saying white collar criminals and crooked politicians should be locked up.

"Harper did this by proposing the Federal Accountability Act before he was elected in 2006."

Good, an idea with a proven track record of success, eh Aristotleded?

Sure ... but just remember the saying about glass houses. For example, criticizing a BC member for never being in the riding and/or never being in the House creates a situation in which no-one can win. A lot of those witch hunts imply a perfect situation that is in fact a perfectly impossible situation to achieve.

I also think that general approach winds up putting a pox on everyone's house eventually. The Ignatieff case was an extreme one, which is why it seemed justified. He left the Hill precinct most days at 4 PM or so.

Also, it would be pretty awesome if the next general election debate saw the NDP hearken back to Mulroney's "You had an option, sir." in reference to Conservative misdeeds... or something similar. I hope that whoever wins the leadership will be capable of delivering such show-stoppers. :)

just a special mention that more conservative voters will need to be converted because in four years, some of the NDP voters who did vote in may , 2011 may have died already or lost hope in life , in work, in politics altogether and you wont be able to count on our votes.

"Sure ... but just remember the saying about glass houses. For example, criticizing a BC member for never being in the riding and/or never being in the House creates a situation in which no-one can win. A lot of those witch hunts imply a perfect situation that is in fact a perfectly impossible situation to achieve."

I agree. An M.P. (or MLA for that matter) who takes their job seriously and is involved in committees, etc., may be out of the house or legislature for this vote or that, doing legitimate work.  There may be cases where an incumbants work ethic could be questioned, but I wouldn't take any liberties with the truth on that issue, for the exact reasons you point out Ottawaobserver.

However, it does make me wonder if nominating a candidate early in riddings where we are the challengers and having that candidate do house to house canvassing for a couple of years, not campaigning as such, but just listening and "fact finding" displays work ethic. That goes a long way with people.  Think back to elections when a government is swept form office, often those M.P.s who weather the storm against their party are seen by thier ridding constituents as a "good constituency person".

The modern model for challengers is to get a community profile through activism, join clubs, etc., do the barbeques, and while this still has to be done, I think it's getting a bit worn out with people.

Tommy_Paine wrote:

However, it does make me wonder if nominating a candidate early in riddings where we are the challengers and having that candidate do house to house canvassing for a couple of years, not campaigning as such, but just listening and "fact finding" displays work ethic. That goes a long way with people.  Think back to elections when a government is swept form office, often those M.P.s who weather the storm against their party are seen by thier ridding constituents as a "good constituency person".

The modern model for challengers is to get a community profile through activism, join clubs, etc., do the barbeques, and while this still has to be done, I think it's getting a bit worn out with people.

Or on a related note, choosing someone who is already well known on a door-to-door basis. Perhaps go on a recruiting binge for city councillors, local activists, etc, in Conservative ridings. Look for people who command a great deal of respect even from constituents who aren't necessarily left-leaning, who are visible in their communities.

theleftyinvestor wrote:

Or on a related note, choosing someone who is already well known on a door-to-door basis. Perhaps go on a recruiting binge for city councillors, local activists, etc, in Conservative ridings. Look for people who command a great deal of respect even from constituents who aren't necessarily left-leaning, who are visible in their communities.

Agreed. Given that our late leader once led the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, it might be wise to create a permanent "Layton caucus" of NDP-aligned city councilors at the event who can put on a more impressive array of hospitality suites and other events than the NDP has in the past.

Slumberjack wrote:

If the tea party movement has demonstrated anything, its that a worsening economic and social landscape is no guarantee to rely upon to determine if people are ripe for a change in political affiliations. When there are so many scapegoats to blame instead, why would anyone turn on the devil they're most familiar with?

Better blaming by us!

Actually, 308 is only projecting NDP pick-ups in Palliser, SRB, and maybe DMCR; they're still twenty-plus points behind in Prince Albert.  I think you mistakenly read the Palliser projection as being the Prince Albert projection, too.

Right, I misread Prince Albert, sorry.

Keep in mind the number of seats in Saskatchewan will not change. The boundaries will obviously have to migrate depending on population changes of course.

And the Saskatchewan riding map looks like it already disfavours the NDP in the first place, so could it get any worse?

Threads like this make me wish I didn't spend so much time on the road.

I think that at least part of the answer to this question is to be found in the formula employed by the Conservatives to build their majority. Some of of what they did is actually reflected in the organizational initiatives introduced by Jack at the Quebec Convention (has it really only been 5 years) and abandoned by the party after the 2011 election (but I'm getting ahead of myself).

Much attention has been paid to the Conservative air wars, and there is a widespread misconception that their destruction of Michael Ignatieff's Liberals was mostly a result of that campaign. If that were true, there is little for the NDP to learn from it. We don't have the kind of money it would take. But that PR strategy was backstopped by intensive ground organizing in targeted regions around the country. The 905 was one of those.

They began their 905 organizing effort in earnest from Michael Chong's riding, Wellington Halton Hills, when he took it from the Liberals in 2004. They put people on the ground whose only job was to build out from Chong's beachhead into neighbouring ridings. These were not constituency or legislative staff, but party operatives with a purely partisan agenda. Their job was to identify potential support among local politicians and community leaders, nurture it, build an organization around it and prepare it to fight the next election(s). It was very labour intensive, and it didn't stop with Chong's riding. With each election the Conservatives expanded their organizing effort to new fronts. They did the same thing around the country in other areas identified as potential growth spots.

The NDP has historically only hired a full complement of ground organizers during election ampaigns. Jack understood that that would not be good enough and hired a core group of full-time organizers. After five years of investing in that capacity, it has all been let go. In truth, it has been under-funded and under-used since the change of managment in the party bureaucracy after the 2008 election, but it was still largely responsible for what growth took place outside Quebec in the 2011 election. We need it back, desperately, and we need a plan to use it effectively.

Why does it matter? Because in the long term, sustainable political growth of the NDP base will have to happen by building our network at the local level. That isn't what won us Quebec this time. That was about the kind of sea-change that comes in the political life of a nation very rarely. But it is the only thing that is going to let us keep Quebec. That means working with progressive local councillors and trustees to bring them on the team and turn them into the kind of candidates who can bring local Conservative (or whatever) voters to support a familiar face in an unfamiliar party. It means nurturing community leaders and helping them run for school boards, commissions and councils as a prelude to running provincially and nationally.

It's about making the party a living, breathing reality at the local level in areas where we aren't already strong. Another product of this kind of effort is an extremely well-developed network of identified supporters who give money, write letters to editors, work on campaigns and generally grease the wheels of our political bandwagon. The Conservatives have that in spades. With the exception of a very few places in the country where our support is already strong, we don't do it well at all.

This is not the whole story, of course. But it is an extremely important part of the puzzle that has not received the attention it deserves.