Ontario election leaders' debate: What's riding on it?

Ack. Now I know I should have closed that one about the NDP's "new strategy." I think having a debate thread, given the intense interest in this election, is a good thing. DON'T MAKE ME REGRET THIS TERRIBLE DECISION YOUSE GYUS.

josh wrote:

Televised debates are the most overrated thing in politics today. Puts a premium on style--sound bites, zingers and appearance--over substance.

As opposed to heavily filtered op-eds in the mainstream tabloid press.

NorthReport wrote:

What kind of things are people looking for in this important leader's debate?

A living wage instead of a mininum/below poverty level wage, a commitment to eradicating poverty, and other policies which would make a massive impact and change in people's lives for the better, which won't be provided by any of the three leaders tonight.

Am I right but is the format designed to exclude Horwath from doing anything but "chipping" in, after the real candidates have their spot in the sun?

Tim Hudak: the Stepford candidate.

NorthReport wrote:

My hunch is that Hudak bested Wynne and the NDP will be the beneficiary.

What a surprise.

From what I saw there were no clear winners or losers.

Wynne only seemed to really get going when she started talking about her early days, and education issues and the fight against Harris. She almost shone there. The rest was indecipherable talking points and goop. Whenever she starts talking, I become afraid that she might go on and on.

Horwath stumbled a lot in her final speech, which wasn't so good because she might have clinched it with a good final speech, after she called out Wynne on cutting funding to Transit City and other failed Liberal promises.

I don't really want to know about Tim's family, but he keeps bringing it up. But his "Kathleen; what happened to you?" line was effective. Ripped from Jack's hit on Steve Harper in 2011.

Might give a slight advantage to Horwath overall, partly because he amateurish stumbles might make her more "likeable" and and seem more sincere, even if not stirring, and she did hammer in a few good punches on Wynne on her record.

Nothing decisive. Will firm up support, more than swing anything.

If Wynne faltered, well...McGuinty was never the greatest debater, either.  (In fact, the way he "bombed" in 1999 could hardly have foretold his firming up about 40% of the vote vs Harris.)

Not good enough for Horwath I am afraid. I think she did well in the main part of the debate, but seemed to get really lost in her closing speech, which kind of deflated her performance at the end. No knock out punch.

Oh well. :) Perhaps something will resonate for people in a way I don't get.

Ipsos poll has it Hudak 36 Wynne 30 Horwath 26. So I guess she didn't bomb.

wow, Horwath only four points behind Wynee? thats almost statistical insignificant!

Sounds like she did bomb.

Who want the debates are never decided the night if the debates or by first impressions. Many people did not think Jack won the debate in 2011, but a single moment that seemed of minor significance to many at the time, won him the debate.

 See people give thier concious opinions about the debate, but debates are won and lost on the unconscious level, what key points stick in the head and sublty influence someones vote.

http://m.thestar.com/#!/news/dalton-mcguinty-haunts-kathleen-wynne-in-de...

 Andrea Horwath had the best sound bites of the night by far, nailing both her oppentents. Its not the final speech that sticks in people head and stays with them, its the zingers, not to mention for those that experience the debate from news clips the next day, zingers are all that matters.

 Buckkeys, you accomplished nothing, chosing between bad ethics and bad math, you had a choice, ect...these are what people will retain.

PrairieDemocrat15 wrote:

Mulroney's 1984 "killing-blow"

Andrea's "you had a choice" mantra seemed to me to have been lifted from Mulroney's (successful) assault on Turner in that campaign, again almost word-for-word ("you could have said NO" etc.)

I'm surprised Hudak scored so well in polling numbers about debates.  It was an okay performance, but the slipping into stories to avoid questions, and his patronizing "you've changed" lines delivered to Wynne (lifted from Layton who delivered the same lines to Harper, but somehow when Layton used these lines it came across as less patronizing) just didn't sit well with me.  He seemed smarmy.

For Unionist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang

My favourite chess word is sitzfleisch.

Hi there--I'm an infrequent visitor, and I tend to feel like I am interrupting the conversation on the very rare occasions I post. *grin* But I watched last night, and wanted to comment on this from the POV of a frequent public speaker.

Rokossovsky wrote:

Wynne only seemed to really get going when she started talking about her early days, and education issues and the fight against Harris. She almost shone there. The rest was indecipherable talking points and goop. Whenever she starts talking, I become afraid that she might go on and on.

That was my impression as well. The "did you feel like you were in a classroom" question in the press conference after was hostile, but to the point. Her education answer was easily her best, one of the few places she spoke passionately and you could tell she really meant it. But otherwise, too much lecturing. The Star was spot on the other day about how her hand gestures can seem too "teacherish." (I don't knock teachers, I am one) It's not good to hector your audience, and it was starting to go that way. Her particular gestures also make it seem like the audience is being scolded. I lost track of the "I need you to know," "I need you to understand."

There was a bit too much staring at the camera to my mind. It's apparent these leaders don't like each other much or have much respect for one another, but this was really the case with Wynne/Horwath. She looked quite uncomfortable and unable to depart from trite talking points, which she often used. I could almost hear the debate coach saying, "when this happens, say this."

Also, my impression was that she was mostly unable to "get in the zone" which is where you have to be for these sorts of things (at least from my experience). It's a sort of zen-like space, where you aren't being self-conscious about everything, but "in the moment," confident about your material, able to engage with the audience and so on. When you make mistakes (inevitable), you can correct them smoothly and you're able to focus on being informative and persuasive.

Her first apology for the gas plants was pretty good, but because the subsequent ones were all pitched around the same talking points, they got repetitive and insincere.

Overall, Wynne needed to show she wasn't Dalton McGuinty and a new era has dawned. That's hard to do when she directly dodged the question of why she signed "that document." The NDP was pretty successful in tagging "bad ethics" to Wynne, and she was pretty weak in trying to deflect references to corruption from both parties. That said, this is an almost impossible situation for her and it could have been much worse. She did get a few Liberal ideas out there. And the telling criticisms concerned corruption, not whether she is actually capable of being Premier. So while she's slipped a bit, it won't be an exodus.

Specifics: Medium Low. Hudak wasn't being fair when he criticized her for not offering any ideas for deficit reduction. They might not work, but she did explain part of her plan. Education was done well, Energy was okay but no mention of any sale of Hydro. Lots of other evasions--she bailed out on Public/Private partnerships pretty fast, the "document" question, and anything requiring hard numbers, outside of "29 billion."

Liberal Talking Points/Catchphrases: 1. "Investment"  2. "backwards to recession." 3. "I'm sorry." 4. Let's move forwards, not backwards" Hon. Mention: "I need you to understand that..."

Overall: 3rd

Rokossovsky wrote:

Horwath stumbled a lot in her final speech, which wasn't so good because she might have clinched it with a good final speech, after she called out Wynne on cutting funding to Transit City and other failed Liberal promises.

Also agree entirely. Horwath had a number of good moments, bookended by poorer ones. She was very strong on the documents question, education, the deficit and transit. She went after Wynne very hard, and I didn't agree at all with the passive-aggressive journalist who asked "you were so good, what happened?" She was quite convincing on why she worked with the Liberals for three years (though "97%" was more telling) and then stopped for this election. In a number of moments, she had quite a lot of passion--you could hear that she really meant what she said, and I think it would be hard for any voter--no matter how partisan--not to have gained some respect for her in those moments. The point in this thread about pithy one-liners is well taken, but given our media, they still matter, and Horwath had the best one--"you don't have to choose between bad ethics and bad math." It was a wee bit irritating to see how her team had also picked this out and it was repeated in the press conference multiple times. I gather this is about reaching people who watch clips of the show after, or who missed the debate, but for those who watched both, I think the repetition comes across as canned and not clever after the first go.

Horwath was weaker on the very first question and the last statement as Rokossovsky said. It's unfortunate, because while a poor first impression/start can be overcome in public speaking, a poor first AND last impression is not a good story. For me, one of the weakest parts of Horwath's debate performance was how she used notes. I entirely understand how this is an incredibly stressful time and place, but you're running for leader of the province, and like it or not, body language and how you address people will influence whether they trust and respect you. It's largely subconscious, not personal.

Horwath looked down at her notes at the start/end far too often, and it was very noticeable. I don't think any of the leaders should be using notes period--debates aren't formal speeches, and you're really only dealing with a series of bulleted talking points put in your own words, there's no time or place for any complex explanations (*sigh*). You should know your own talking points by heart, and be able to expand or modify them. So granted, just me, but I thought the cue cards very weak. Yes, this context is important and you want to get your message right, but it is SO important that I expect each of them to be able to say what they have to say without referring to their notes when doing it. That was something that separated her 1st/last statements from the ones I praised, where she rarely looked down, and put her talking points in her own words.

Also, both her first and especially and her last statements were too halting. This moment looks like it has to be totally extemporaneous, which I will grant you is not at all easy. (it is a lot easier when you are "in the zone" as above though). Horwath did recover, but it wasn't her best moment, as I am sure she'd agree. One of the big reasons why is that she broke down in the middle of a "rule of three" moment, a key part of most political speeches/tracts (think "Friends, Romans, Countrymen!"). It's supposed to be a key moment of cadence that really resonates, but if you blow it, that really resonates too. Rick Perry's inability to name off three departments he'd cut is Exhibit A here; for Horwath she lost it in the middle of listing Liberal scandals that really ought to have rolled off her tongue.

Overall, the realpolitik of it is that Horwath had to convince people the NDP is a viable alternate to the Liberal Party, let alone Hudak. (She did quite well distancing herself from Hudak, with a clear, "cutting 100,000 jobs is off the table"--that's at the core of his platform, so it repudiates him as well [he's going to resign if he doesn't do it]) All of her points came back to "respect" and had the general tone of "look, we're not going to do anything extreme, only common sense stuff that helps you." She made this point clearly and effectively a number of times in the questions she answered well, and her stumbles can't entirely erase that. Andrea needed an outstanding/dominant performance to leapfrog the Liberals, and I don't think she got that. On the other hand, as Rokossovsky noted below, it will firm up NDP support. There's been some talk Horwath will have to resign if she loses seats, and I think this went a long way towards reducing any losses to the Liberals and their "progressive budget." She's also positioned herself to enter an actual coalition with NDP Ministers. Yes, as actual members of government they have to take some of the responsibility for compromises made and hope to stay clear of Liberal scandals, but NDP priorities get put on the table and can't be ignored. I'd think they might actually enter the government, rather than accept an "Accord" (it's my understanding that Horwath won't accept the paper its printed on) but I guess we'll see.

Specifics: Medium-High. I thought she was much better in terms of specific items from her plan, and a rationale for them. I personally found them convincing, but then she's preaching to the choir with me in any case. She was good on the corporate tax cuts, auto insurance and Transit City in particular.

NDP Talking Points/Catchphrases: 1. "hardworking people" 2. "I will respect you" 3. "corruption" 4. "You don't have to choose the old way" Hon. Mention: "Dirty Diesel"

Overall: 2nd

Rokossovsky wrote:

I don't really want to know about Tim's family, but he keeps bringing it up. But his "Kathleen; what happened to you?" line was effective. Ripped from Jack's hit on Steve Harper in 2011.

Tell me about it. (See, this is why I picked this post to reply to). But while I am highly sympathetic to this assessment, I also think Hudak largely achieved his goals. The line you noted did resonate with me, (When he said I wrote in my notes, "ooo, it's like we used to be friends and you've changed" but he also went back to it a second time, which was really insincere. He also (consciously I presume) mimicked Mulroney's "you had a choice," from the 1984 debate. For me, the whole thing screamed talking points and a polished performance--but it was pretty polished. Hudak rarely stumbled in what he said, shrugged off most of the attacks on him (especially Wynne's first "will you admit you made a mistake"--lame). That said, Horwath did get in a few good ones I think--particularly with the line about Conservatives slipping ridiculous amendments into their motions and her "at least we got something done around here."

Overall, Hudak went for folksy, charming and safe. He downplayed his plan as reasonable and moderate, and himself as trustworthy. He'd also clearly read the same Star article as me on body language smiling that I had because he smiled all the way through and sometimes held out his arms as if to embrace the audience. It usually seemed sincere enough, though there were a few moments where some of more poisonous remarks coming out of his mouth belied this charming grin on his face. Rokossovsky is spot on to say that he used his family quite a lot, and this was clearly to humanize him and his policies-- why, he'd never hurt anyone! He has a little girl who he wants to succeed in math! Arg. For me, this grew cloying, maudlin and insincere quite quickly, but then I follow politics. The majority of voters tuning in for the first time in three years for a few minutes could easily buy all this. He was very clever in dropping “like Greece and Detroit” into a deficit answer—the point to such references is that they are mythic and so easily understood. At the same time they can’t be effectively refuted in a debate performance without long digressions.

Hudak was generally good on all the questions from a speaking point of view. He almost never looked down and spoke smoothly and well. He looked at people when they spoke to him. His last statement was very well done indeed; simple message, smoothly delivered without notes, and very sincere. I don't doubt at all that he will do what he says he will. The 97% similarity accusation was probably also telling—I did think Horwath answered it well, but it is a simple, easy to remember stat to use to misrepresent the NDP—one of those, “lies, damn lies and statistics” sort of things.

Hudak also had the second best pithy maxim: "You know they are going to do it again if you let them get away with it this time." It's brilliant rhetorically because we're back to hard to resist "everybody knows" kinds of statements, and it also puts direct responsibility on the voter. "Are YOU going to let them get away with that? You?" It's an elemental cry for fairness.

 I also note that while Wynne started the Question Period style of non-question passive aggressive style attack, ("when will you admit your mistake with your platform...") that Hudak then bludgeoned Wynne with the same thing for the next hour. I found it quite childish and it ought to belie the "I'm safe and cuddly, honest" vibe he was trying for, so I don't think the attacks had much effect, but I also don't think most will remember the mask slipping off and revealing a much nastier Hudak underneath either.

But overall, he needed to counter the impression that he is extremist, cold and out to punish civil servants/teachers/police (he dealt with the OPP Union's opposition very well I thought especially). I think he will have succeeded to a certain extent in this respect, and any improvement here will translate to support in the polls. You can't turn around your public image in a day, but you can influence those relying on this show to decide who to vote for.

Specifics: Low. There were a few--like getting rid of a Ontario Power Generation division, and attrition/middle management layoffs, not front-line workers. Frankly, I was surprised the other two let him get away with this, since he is quoted with often saying how education front line workers will be cut and class sizes raised. But of course other “specifics” were mere talking points, "a million jobs!" '100,000 layoffs," "1.2 million to 1.1 million" "no raises" and so on. Hudak claimed in the press conference that he'd balance the budget even in a recession, without answering a single specific question concerning program cuts. He is asking for a blank check and saying, "you can trust me, honest!" This may or may not be effectively used against him as “he’s too rigid,” – we can hope, because it’s hard to see how $11-$12 billion in tax cuts can be implemented without leading to much chaos--as Horwath did remind us yesterday.

Conservative Talking Points/Catchphrases: 1. "I have a plan" 2. "They're going to do it again" 3. "If I don't do what I say I will resign" 4. "responsible, necessary but compassionate cuts" Hon. Mention: "Hope is coming."

Overall: 1st

Rokossovsky wrote:

Might give a slight advantage to Horwath overall, partly because he amateurish stumbles might make her more "likeable" and seem more sincere, even if not stirring, and she did hammer in a few good punches on Wynne on her record.

So we differ a bit here, though I do agree that Horwath should generally get a bounce from this. I think it would be very difficult to reasonably tie her to Rae, while she and Wynne did manage to link Hudak to Harris, and Hudak/Horwath did tie Wynne/McGuinty together effectively.

Rokossovsky wrote:

Nothing decisive. Will firm up support, more than swing anything.

I think my guess would be some bleed to the NDP and the Conservatives both, probably along the lines of 1985.

Edited to add: I do know all the leaders brought cue cards and had them out, and I didn't like it with any of them. Wynne also noticeably "looked down." Hudak hardly at all, in keeping with the overall level of his performance. But it was most noticeable for me with Horwath and the main thing I'd fix given a do-over.

"I don't think any of the leaders should be using notes period--debates aren't formal speeches, and you're really only dealing with a series of bulleted talking points put in your own words, there's no time or place for any complex explanations (*sigh*)"

You need the notes for the facts and figures - particularly these days when any little discrepancy of stutter is jumped upn as an example of "you can't even get your facts right".  You'll notice the debater that used no notes said the least of actual substance or detail.  But the use of notes for your basic intro/outro pitch is ridiculous.  I suspect Horwath bumbled her intro and outro simply because she's better at responding to real people on the fly and when talking to the camera falls into the trap of "uh what did they tell me to say here, again?"  I listened to half the debate on radio and both her and Wynne came across a lot better in that format.