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

Frankly, a Doug Ford leadership contest (and even victory) would have been more than likely to benefit the NDP (and Liberals too). A Doug Ford candidacy would have split votes away from Christine Elliott, who is a much more dangerous and formidable potential PC leader (very right-wing, but much more personable and savvy than Tim Hudak) so that possibly a lacklustre candidate would come out on top. Should Ford  hve won, Eureka -- it would have been Tim Hudak all over again, complete with spectacular gaffes and foot-in-mouth disease, and alienation of a number of voters outside the GTA.  He would have been as big a gift to the Liberals and the NDP as Hudak was.  Too bad, in a way, but  Sineed's analysis is correct, I think; Ford will end up back in City Council, protecting Ward 2 from autistic children and carrying on shouting matches in the legislature. 

terrytowel wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

It's been irritating, it's been irrational-sounding at times, and it's pretty much turned everyone else here against you...so please, in the name of whatever drives you, can you please give the Fordsteria a rest?

Since they have all left town ABSOLUTELY

Unfortunately we still have Rob around. Bro Doug announced that Toronto now has TWO mayor's running Toronto. John Tory & Rob as 'opposition' leader.

Hopefully Rob will be as marginlized as possible in his reduced role. But I do wish him well in his cancer fight. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Rob(for whom I will also wish better health, being the son of a cancer survivor)is most likely never going to be back in active politics and Doug, who is now out of office and focused on the family business, which he may or may not save, will both be irrelevant in GTA politics and politics at any other level for years to come, if not forever.

What matters now is building a new left politics in the GTA that gets through to former Ford Nation voters that, while past "liberal" mayors were elitist and out-of-touch, Fordite politics doesn't actually help them and that they need to join forces with everybody else on the outside-ethnic communities, other workers, and the poor-in a fight to make a city that's run from the bottom up, not the top down.

Continuing to focus on the evils of one family with one name is now a useless task.  The Fords simply don't matter anymore, and obsessing on "anyone but Ford" politics is no longer going to lead to anything positive for any of the people Fordite politics attacked.

The need now is to talk openly about class and abuse of power, and of the need to find common ground in a program of radical change-not just to work for the  defeat of anybody with the last name of Ford by any means necessary, including replacing them by someone(as just happened)who agrees with them on every major issues but simply happens to be from a different family and have a different personality.  OK?

Geoff wrote:

Tim Hudak was no gift to the NDP; just check the election results from last June's campaign.

 

Baloney. Tim Hudak was a huge opportunity for the NDP -- a gift handed them on a platter, the likes of which we will never (probably) see again in the foreseeable future.  The election results? Those dismal outcomes were directly the consequence of a horribly mismanaged NDP campaign where the Liberals managed to present themselves as far more "progressive" than the NDP, and where the NDP presented no real vision whatever. Even I, a member, could not recognize core NDP values in the campaign. I am not alone. Most of my NDP friends and neighbours either didn't vote at all or voted Liberal.  

A bumbling extreme right-winger at the head of the PC's is indeed a gift to the NDP -- but of course, it's a gift they can squander, as they did this past spring.  I'm not sanguine about any "lessons learned."  I did not renew my membership. Good riddance.

Rokossovsky wrote:

Don't be surprised if he shows up in Etobicoke North, which is presently held by a Liberal. If anyone is going to do the dirty deed on the Liberals in Etobicoke, its the Ford's.

:

Provincially or Federally?

Federally the riding is held by Dr. Kirsty Duncan, Liberal MP.  She was the only Liberal MP in the Etobicoke area that managed to survive the Ignatieff debacle in 2011.  Ignatieff himself lost by a substantial margin in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, and Borys W. lost in Etobicoke Centre, albeit by only 25 votes in suspicious circumstances that ended up going to the Supreme Court.

Duncan has shown that she can win in difficult elections and has personal popularity, although I have often wondered what the results would be if a Ford ran federally in Etobicoke North.  But with all the drama surrounding the Fords right now, I don't think Stephen Harper would want that anyway.

Debater wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

Don't be surprised if he shows up in Etobicoke North, which is presently held by a Liberal. If anyone is going to do the dirty deed on the Liberals in Etobicoke, its the Ford's.

:

Provincially or Federally?

Federally the riding is held by Dr. Kirsty Duncan, Liberal MP.  She was the only Liberal MP in the Etobicoke area that managed to survive the Ignatieff debacle in 2011.  Ignatieff himself lost by a substantial margin in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, and Borys W. lost in Etobicoke Centre, albeit by only 25 votes in suspicious circumstances that ended up going to the Supreme Court.

Duncan has shown that she can win in difficult elections and has personal popularity, although I have often wondered what the results would be if a Ford ran federally in Etobicoke North.  But with all the drama surrounding the Fords right now, I don't think Stephen Harper would want that anyway.

I didn't mean to sour your milk. Never mind....

Mighty Middle wrote:

Let's continue this discussion as Doug Ford had said Ford Nation base is made up of 25% of committed brain-dead NDP supporters. Add to the fact progressives will rush to the Liberals to stop Ford, and will there even be an NDP left after the dust settles?

Good luck to Rob Ford! Somehow for some reason this clip seems to be appropriate but for some reason I can't put my finger on it?

https://youtu.be/wcW_Ygs6hm0

 

Well, the exit polls showed that the Trump swing voters weren't, in fact, the trailer park crowd, but suburbanites making $70,000/year. I suspect the irreducible Mike Harris/Doug Ford base in the 905 is similarly composed.

Ken Burch wrote:

It's likely that whatever hold the Fords had on working-class voters has loosened-at this stage, it's going to be hard for anyone to delude themselves into believing that subjecting themselves to higher transit fares and cuts in services is worth it in the name of sticking it to some imaginary "elite".

Ask Ontario Trump supporters and they would believe all that coming from Ford. In fact only 19% of Canadians have a high approval of Donald Trump, and I would suspect that number holds in Ontario. I mean The Toronto Sun is practically a Canadian Trump propaganda machine.

Progressives would stampede to Wynne Liberals to stop Ford. and with 25% of committed NDP voters supporting Ford, how decimated with the NDP be after the dust settles?

How cool that Mighty Middle has revived an old thread which he himself started when he was known as terrytowel, and how obvious that he has not changed at all in the meanwhile.

MM by hitching your strategic voting to Doug Ford, what does that say if/when he is not the selection?

Admit it, MM...you're just going to keep demanding that all progressives "strategically" vote Liberal(we all know "strategic voting NEVER involves Liberals voting NDP in NDP-PC or NDP-Con ridings and never will) no matter what.  

All this is about with you is this notion that the Liberals are simply ENTITLED to all progressive votes, no matter wh0 leads them or how right-wing they get.

You even pushed it in 2011, a year when there was no good reason for any progressive voters in any riding in Canada to vote Liberal, when there was no chance that voting Liberal anywhere would have prevented Harper from winning a majority.

Enough already.

Ken Burch wrote:

You even pushed it in 2011, a year when there was no good reason for any progressive voters in any riding in Canada to vote Liberal, when there was no chance that voting Liberal anywhere would have prevented Harper from winning a majority.

Enough already.

I think you mean 2015 where groups like "Vote Together" "Lead  Now" and Unifor leader Jerry Dias were all preaching strategic voting in that election.

 

Mighty Middle wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

You even pushed it in 2011, a year when there was no good reason for any progressive voters in any riding in Canada to vote Liberal, when there was no chance that voting Liberal anywhere would have prevented Harper from winning a majority.

Enough already.

I think you mean 2015 where groups like "Vote Together" "Lead  Now" and Unifor leader Jerry Dias were all preaching strategic voting in that election.

 

The case for "strategic voting" died when the federal Cons and the Ontario PC's were voted out.   There's no case for ever doing it again.

There's no need to reduce the choice to Conservative vs. Liberal for the rest of eternity.

 

Strategic voting is less important than ever because we have a working example in BC of two parties ousting the party that won the most seats. Citizens seem just fine with it. If the Conservatives won a minority the NDP and the Liberals could team up to oust the Conservatives. 

Strategic voting is not something that needs to be promoted it is something citizens do automatically if they personally fear one party more than they support another. If they don't no amount of pleading will work and voters seem to react badly to a party begging for strategic votes. It's admitting you don't have much to offer beyond not being the other guy. 

The Liberals have been in power for a long time. They have to run on their record, credibility and platform.

But in 2015 when the NDP were leading the polls the slogan was

"Only the NDP can defeat Stephen Harper".

Then when they starting to decline the narrative was

"The NDP have over 100 incumbents. We only need 35 more seats to defeat Stephen Harper"

"The NDP is only 35 seats away from defeating Stephen Harper"

"We only need 35 more seats. Were as the Liberals need over 100 seats. That is impossible"

So if everyone agreed with that way of thinking, to STOP Doug Ford (like the NDP had all those STOP HARPER signs)

"Only the Liberals can defeat Doug Ford"

"The Liberals have 50 incumbents. We only need 12 more seats to defeat Doug Ford"

"The Liberals are only 12 seats away from defeating Doug Ford"

"We only need 12 more seats. Were as the NDP need 47 seats."

So that is narrative from 2015 preached by the NDP. btw Trudeau NEVER ONCE advocated strategic voting in 2015, Not once. So if it is good enough for the NDP to preach that in 2015, why can't the Ontario Liberals do the same since they are ahead of the NDP in the polls?

Strategic voting in practice is almost anything but strategic.  People in two party races vote for the third party because of a national/provincial message. What is clear is that arguing for a strategic vote is often just saying vote for my guy.  Rarely do you see someone say vote for X because it is a strategic necessity who doesn't want people to vote for X regardless. It is kind of a story to hide behind when you cannot make a straightforward case for your party.

I've said before, but I'll say again, it's unfortunate that at some point the electoral system --flawed or not -- stopped being about supporting the candidate or party you agree with, and became "un"-supporting the candidate or party you disagree with the most.

I've also said before -- and will also say again -- maybe we should consider turning electoral politics upside down, such that every eligible citizen can vote for whoever they most want to NOT win.  Whoever gets the LEAST such votes is asked to form government.

I think lots of electors would spend their vote to prevent K0ok parliament.  And if not then they would reap what they sowed.

But if voting no longer means choosing the person/party you support (and, rather, voting against the person/party you hate with the intensity of a collapsed sun) then it would at least be interesting to see where it led.

Right now, voting NDP could mean "squandering" your one vote on a party that might not win.

Under my "negative voting" rules, voting [against] The Christian Animal Marijuana Taxpayers' Party might mean squandering your vote on a party that could never win.

Really, though, I'm only suggesting that there's a difference between voting for what you want and voting against what you don't want.

The biggest problem is that this thinking only benefits medium chicken wings.

Mighty Middle wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

You even pushed it in 2011, a year when there was no good reason for any progressive voters in any riding in Canada to vote Liberal, when there was no chance that voting Liberal anywhere would have prevented Harper from winning a majority.

Enough already.

I think you mean 2015 where groups like "Vote Together" "Lead  Now" and Unifor leader Jerry Dias were all preaching strategic voting in that election.

 

No, I mean 2011, when you were STILL arguing for "strategic voting"(by which you meant "vote Liberal no matter where you live") even though you knew the Liberal vote had collapsed and that in most of the country your notion of "strategic voting" would simply have resulted in a LARGER majority for Harper.

And it doesn't matter if Justin advocated it or not.  No Liberal leader ever actually does.

Ford doesn't have as wide support as terrytowel says he does, but he's still terrible for NDP prospects as he nibbles their lunch on both sides.

The idea of Ford remixed is even more "scary" than Hudak, which will direct marginal NDP voters to the Liberals.  Ford also siphons just enough NDP support in the southern Golden Horseshoe, SW Ontario and bits of the north to bring the Liberals into play in some of NDP ridings.

Brown was an excellent PC leader for the NDP because his messages were bland, his appeal shallow, and his persona was inauthentic.

Fedeli was an ok leader for NDP prospects as he is relatively unknown and uninteresting. 

Caroline Mulroney would be fantastic for NDP prospects as she conflicts the most with Wynne, and provides the most contrast to Horwath.

So, when any millionaire jackass like Donald Trump or Doug Ford whines about "elites", NDP voters come running?

progressive17 wrote:

So, when any millionaire jackass like Donald Trump or Doug Ford whines about "elites", NDP voters come running?

youngsocialist wrote:

Can you really be mad at us for voting for Ford when our so called NDP councillors don't give a fuck about our problems? You are more likely to get a response from Rob Ford on the phone than my NDP councillor who is too busy eating at fancy restaurants and attending parties than to even respond to your tweets. You want our vote? Then show us that you value my time and money. Stop putting money into projects that have failed, come up with new ideas AND even listen to ours!

NDP: Pretends to care.