Andrea Horwath: Ontario Official Opposition Leader is on a Roll

It'll be interesting coming back to this thread in 4 years.

Andrea Horwath did worse than Hillary Clinton, who actually won the popular vote by 2%.     Horwath lost the popular vote by a whooping 7%, which is much worse than all of the polls predicted.

NorthReport wrote:

Ontario NDP organizers laud ‘historic’ moment as party forms Official Opposition

“This is not a replay of 2015,” she said. That was the federal election in which then-NDP leader Tom Mulcair launched his campaign with what looked like a clear shot of becoming prime minister. By election night, support had collapsed, and the party came in third. To NDP members, it’s still known as the night that sparked “an existential crisis,” Ms. Monk said.

This time around, Ms. Horwath and the Ontario NDP launched their campaign as clear underdogs, holding just 18 seats in the legislature. By Thursday night, they appeared poised to at least double their seat count – likely the most won by the party since the only time it formed government, under Bob Rae in 1990. The election results also hand the NDP the role of Official Opposition.

On a practical level, this will translate into heightened influence at Queen’s Park. The role of Official Opposition gives the NDP a much bigger platform in the legislature – seats on committees and, in some cases, the ability to chair committees.

PLAY VIDEO2:25

Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath told a large crowd of supporters that, in their role as opposition, her party will fight for "change for the better."

“They do have more of a leadership role,” said David Wills, a senior vice-president at Media Profile who was not involved with the Horwath campaign but has worked on past NDP campaigns. “And they set the tone and pace for holding the government to account.”

Changes made by the Ontario Liberal government last year also mean political parties now receive subsidies based on the amount of support they receive.

In the longer term, NDP members hope Thursday’s results – and the collapse in Liberal support – will represent a fundamental shift in the political landscape.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-ndp-pick-up-big-g...

"This is not a replay of 2015". We won't know that until 2022, will we?

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Andrea Horwath did worse than Hillary Clinton, who actually won the popular vote by 2%.     Horwath lost the popular vote by a whooping 7%, which is much worse than all of the polls predicted.

What a joke as a comparison. So let's compare a foreign country, different system and the results of a leader who came from third to a close second with one who started the campaign as the favorite in a mostly two party system and lost. Shall we?

Do you really think that in a head to head battle with Ford and only the Greens and another right wing party Horwath would have done worse than Clinton? Seriously?

How about if it was a Presidential election (which we do not have in Ontario) do you really think with any certainty that Ford would have beaten Horwath if it had been not a series of local names, parties and races but just the leaders' names on the ballot? The NDP as the third party limited Horwath not her name and person. If the legislature and the premier were on different ballots we would have Horwath as Premier leading a majority Conservative party legislature. If that sounds absurd,  it is no more so than your silly comparison.

Sillier too when  you factor in that the United States has basically two parties to choose from. Ontario had three parties  divvying up the vote. 

 Gee,  if Doug Ford is so great why did he only get 40% of the popular vote and Hillary Clinton got 52%?

Sean, just ignore SJ101. He has been acting like a Tokyo Rose this whole election campaign. He's a Liberal shill and nothing more.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

A "Liberal shill" who critisized the OLP for running attack ads against the NDP??  A "Liberal shill" who voted for the ONDP and discourages anyone from voting for the OLP in this election.      I'm a progressive voter first and foremost.   Parties don't matter that much.    I'm just dissappointed that the NDP turned out to be a failed experiment for Ontario's progressive voters.

Yeah maybe more of a fairweather friend with goofy political analysis.

The NDP did not "fail" by going from under 20% to nearly 35% with the least resources. Your test is clearly the real failure here. And sorry, but that is what is making you suspect. I am not suspecting you of being a shill, your posts just now are far too silly to be a thought out strategy.

Sean in Ottawa, if you have to use insults, you're not really that confident in your own arguments.    The ONDP had the opportunity of a life time, with 2 extremely unpopular opponents.   If they couldn't pull off a win now against wacky Doug Ford who had no platform, why should progressive voters rely on them in the future, provincially or federally.

Sean in Ottawa, telling someone "You just don't get it" or your "arguments are silly" is not constructive, nor it is civil debate.     Perhaps Ford Nation is rubbing off on you.

NorthReport wrote:

Misfit,

You are commenting on something that is one the biggest problem for these discussion boards. How many times now have we had posters come here under an alias and say they support or used to support the NDP and then bash away on the NDP every chance they get. Recently a good example was that Goodbye NDP thread. Some of them come here, bash the NDP until they get tossed, and then return under another alias. Lens Solution, there have been other aliases for this person, I forget the rest, was another example of someone saying they were supportive of the NDP and then every single word that comes out of their mouths was an attack on the NDP. Lens S is still posting here, but after beeen called out so often for his BS, has at least stopped pretending that he is a NDP supporter. He now posts here under the alias which starts with a d. For some reason it seems that it is always the Liberals that are trying to deceive. Go figure!

This is why I take a different tack than many here. I rarely call out a troll and it takes a long time for me to do that and even then I point out why they look like they are trolling.

I am harsh on ideas I disagree with but take them at face value.

I do not like conspiracies much. I also think that in a way it does not matter if someone has a bad motive unless they are consistently dishonest and only trying to disrupt. Ideas here should be able to withstand such types of posters.

This is why I usually do not get into the who is what or that stuff but instead engage in the post and idea. and that is what we are here for.

I also know that there have been some accused of identity dishonest and various nefarious agendas when that has not been true. I still think the best thing is to respond to the posts and that people accept that the clash of ideas is not always pretty but it is healthy. I will certainly be hard on the people who whine about having outragious ideas attacked as it they are parts of their person. That is what is happening here.

If you post something here - you ought to expect scrutiny and criticism and should defend it rather than whine - otherwise write it in your diary.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa, telling someone "You just don't get it" or your "arguments are silly" is not constructive, nor it is civil debate.     Perhaps Ford Nation is rubbing off on you.

Both are clearly responses to posts you put here for response. Tough they are not   the ones you want.

Please stop confusion your person with your posts. Most here will respond to the latter and don't give a shit about the former. That is why they are here.

I am absolutely sick and tired of people coming here preparing badly thought out illogical posts and seeking some kind of personal privelege to avoid having those posts criticized harshly.

Here you get judged by the quality and logic of what you write -- as you should. When that crosses into something personal then that is another matter .Normally people here share so little about themselves that this is not likely.

If you do go personal, you better make sure that the other person clearly went there first and did not just attack something you said.

Get this -- your words are only yours to protect when they are still in your mouth.

Sean in Ottawa, just ask yourself why you feel that your veiled insults / rudeness are necessary.  Is your argument not strong enough without the insult?   Perhaps you should be more detailed in addressing the content instead.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa, just ask yourself why you feel that your veiled insults / rudeness are necessary.  Is your argument not strong enough without the insult?   Perhaps you should be more detailed in addressing the content instead.

I was very detailed. And you were very clear about avoiding engagement with the content of my criticism. I even numbered one of them for you. My criticism had as much content as sarcasm.

When you answer in this way -- insulting you is like shooting fish in a barrel. Seriously, take more time before you write, do your own criticism and edits and you will not get insulted as often.

Here is a little insight if you want to avoid my insults: I consider what I write and put effort into posts. I often do a little research and provide details. This means I dislike intensely lazy posts that are patnetly silly and have no back-up or logic. I think people thinking things through rather than just burping up garbage makes this a more interesting place. I tend to answer rudely to people who post in a half assed way without reading or responding to what has been said, while ignoring facts, and being illogical. I do not make this personal either -- I have responded harshly to many people I have also praised here. One example would be North Report -- we are at times hard on each other but also able to acknowledge what we agree. I think this makes the result more interesting. Neither one of us whines when the other disagrees harshly.

So if you want me to not attack your posts. Think a little before you post and edit out what is ridiculous. And this will work on other people as well.

People who actually put time into thoughtful posts tend to be less nice to stuff posted here with all the thought of a bird dropping.

ETA: My insults are never veiled. If I am going to insult a stupid post I think I am pretty clear. It is you who are imagining them to be about your person rather than your product. It seems that is the tactic of the weakest posters here to confuse an attack on a silly post with something being said about themselves. Perhaps that is really just a lame attempt to avoid deserved feedback on what they have said by seeking privelege.

Restaurant reviews, even harsh ones, are often informative. If you post here think of it like a meal you made: it is open to praise, agreement, disagreement and ridicule. These are all ways of communicating effectively and soemtimes with humour. The strength of the sarcasm is also a part of the point and message. This is why freedom of speech can be such a great thing. We cannot make people say nice things about what we say. We just set ground rules so people cannot attack our persons about personal attributes.

Misfit wrote:

What I think is also really funny is that back in the day there was an annoying Liberal troll named Terry Towell who was obsessed with the former mayor of Mississauga, Hazel McCallion.

There  was another Liberal Troll on this board, Mighty Middle, who also adored Hazel McCallion.

and then I watched Doug Ford's victory speech and he gave special mention and thanks to none other than Hazel McCallion who was sitting in the front row of the Progressive Conservative  victory celebrations.

Hazel Mccallion is a Liberal who  endorsed the Conservative party because the Conservatives are very similar to the Liberals.

Oh god please don’t mention the former mayor of Mississauga name again!PLEASE!

Shes a fuckin horrible horrible person!

The NDP: Snatching defeat from the jaws of Victory since, well, forever. Except for Tommy and Jack, they are irrelevant because they prefer ideology to reality.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

More Liberal whining about the existence of the NDP.

Isn't Martin N. an admitted conservative?

One difference is that the OLP raised the minimum wage to $14 and were going to raise it to $15 but the PC's are now going to maintain the minimum wage at $14 for probably as long as they are in power. The PC's may even reduce the minimum wage for particular groups.