10.16.2015 07:49 AM

KCCCC Day 75: the Ford Nation/Donald Trump edition


  • Rob and Doug Ford are the talk of the nation, and Ford Nation.  They are again everywhere – in tut-tutting opinion columns, in disapproving news coverage, in angry leader’s scrums, in every incredulous broadcast.
  • I am no citizen of Ford Nation.  But, after doing battle with said nation, and losing, I came away with respect for its power.  I wrote about it.
  • Dear Progressive Canada: Ford Nation – and its allied state, Harperstan – don’t care if you disapprove of them.  As they have shown several times, they don’t need (or want) your support.  They have won multiple times without it. And it is a big, big mistake to underestimate them, with voting day inching ever-closer.
  • Weird things seem to be happening – as that Ekos poll last night suggests.  Looking at it, I do not see much evidence that the Fords are hurting Stephen Harper. I see evidence the reverse may be true: the shy Tory vote is awakening from its slumber, perhaps.
  • Anyway.  We shall see.  In the meantime, here is SFH’s loving tribute to Rob Ford – and our SiriusXM show with Charles Adler last night, on which the Fords (and The Donald!) were discussed at length.  Enjoy, if you can.


  1. Matt says:

    Nanos also showed some negative movement for the Libs and positive movement for the CPC in this mornings release. It wasn’t much and well within the polls MOE, but still, is the first time all week the Libs didn’t increase their lead.

    What does it mean? Quite frankly I’ve given up trying to figure the polls out.

  2. Matt says:

    And Trudeau and Mulcair need to be careful insulting the Ford’s.

    When the leaders of Ford nation are insulted, many members of Ford Nation take them as PERSONAL insults.

  3. MississaugaPeter says:

    In no ways am I a Ford Nation supporter, but I associate Ford now more with cancer-survivor than drug addict.

    I am sure I am not the only one.

    It was close. If only 4% of John Tory’s vote had voted for Ford last year, Toronto would be Ford City.

  4. Alex says:

    The discussion on shy Tories on the Charles Adler show got my mind racing. During this election Trudeau has benefited from low expectations. But now that many pollsters and pundits are saying that the Liberals will win (some even musing of a possible majority) what happens if they lose the election thanks to shy Tories?

    Is it possible that after this really long campaign, the result will be a Tory minority that somehow limps along because an angry Trudeau (“Andrew Coyne said I would win!”) and a moody Mulcair (“I can’t believe I lost Stornoway to Justin!”) refuse to work together?

    To paraphrase Socrates: The more I analysis this election the more I realise how little I know.

  5. Lou Nickols says:

    Warren speaks of the shy tory… they do exist and I am one.. I have had and seen others examples of peoples over the top reactions sometimes when one states they will vote tory.. It consists of insults , incredulous looks , he “how can you vote for those idiots…etc … Not discussion , not debate , outright attacks , self righteous indignation and ignorance …and the result is I , we , the shy tories will crawl over broken glass to get to the polls on Monday

    • Brent Crofts says:

      I hear you.

      I think it’s fair to say that I’ve become a shy Tory in recent years. I’m baffled by the disdain and outright nastiness I receive from supporters of other parties when I mention who I support in the election or why. These individuals do not wish to discuss or debate issues with me. They just smugly call me names and tell me how stupid I am, often in those very words. I’ve cut back on talking about politics in recent years and tend to shut down when others raise the subject. However, I always vote, as do many people like me. Historically, you cannot say the same about these other individuals, though apparently this election may be different.

  6. BlueGritr says:

    Unleash the hounds? Hardly. Ford Nation now means squat. They’re yesterday’s guys. Desperation move on the part of the Conservatives. The GTA is going solidly “red” and the end result, once all the ballots are counted: Liberals with 158 seats and the Conservatives, around 100.

    • Cory says:

      Their goal might not be to switch the GTA from red to blue, but from red to orange.

      If they can shave a percent or two from the tight GTA races between the Libs and NDP it could make a difference in seat counts.

  7. Cath says:

    Not a Ford supporter at all, but the only bully sounding off yesterday was Trudeau IMO. His comments were quite vicious coming from a guy who was allegedly close to Ben Levin. Pretty sure the MSM will not go there with him though.

    I think you’re right Warren. This is a strategically masterful stroke on the part of Harper who is looking to capitalize on the votes Ford Nation brings with them.

    I have to say to though that Mulcair played things very well in Quebec yesterday.

    • Matt says:

      Yeah, Trudeau needs to be careful who he calls a hypocrite on drugs.

      It’s not like Trudeau stood in the HOC to vote in favor of tougher marijuana laws knowing full well he had been taking some puffs here and there.

      Oh wait…………

      • Cath says:

        No kidding. Isn’t he the same guy who, right out of the gate said he would NEVER go negative? Broke that promise in no time flat.
        Not to mention his mantra about being a leader who values accountability and transparency. That flew out the window when he over turned nominations.
        Yesterday’s return to the days of Adscam brought it all back to too many.

      • W the K - No, not Warren says:

        Not even in the same universe of hypocrisy as Doug Ford’s comments yesterday.

    • W the K - No, not Warren says:

      And there you have the emerging Conservative meme for the remainder of the campaign: the victim card.

      Trudeau is, gasp, attacking us! Y’know, I don’t like those Fords, but man, they’re grrrreat! Liberals associate with perverts! And there’s a conspiracy of silence by the MSM!

      No political leader in my lifetime has been as relentlessly attacked as Justin Trudeau. Almost two and a half years non stop on radio, tv, and online starting minutes after he was elected leader.

      If I had a nickel for every online comment or radio talk show call that started with “I’m no Ford supporter at all, but…” that then went on to try, poorly, to convince me of the virtue of the Fords I’d be a rich man. The cliche is that old.

      Nolan. See how easy that is. And pointless.

      People who complain about the MSM usually mean the CBC and The Star. Last election only two major newspapers didn’t endorse the Conservatives. This time around I don’t expect it to be so near unanimous, but if all Postmedia/Sun chain papers are not exclusively Conservative I’d be surprised. Private talk radio is overwhelmingy conservative, at least everything I hear in southern Ontario.

      Conservative messaging for the remainder of the campaign: we’re surrounded by enemies, they’re attacking us, be afraid, only Harper can save us.

      Both Harper and Ford played it yesterday.

      • Cory says:

        No politician has been attacked as much as Justin?

        Have you followed Harper’s career since his Reform days? Heck the 2004/6 campaign was basically nothing but personal attacks on him.

        • Maps Onburt says:

          Exactly… Justin didn’t get it nearly as bad as Iggy or Dion or even Harper. Have a look around Facebook and see all the ads and post about Harper being Hitler or worse.

          “He’s just not ready – yet” isn’t that much of an attack ad as a statement of fact.

        • Al in Cranbrook says:

          I remember it well.

          I’m certain that Harper does, too.

          F’rinstance, who can forget…


        • fan590 says:

          If JT has faltered during the campaign, you would have seen a HUGE pile on.

          But he didn’t.

          He actually performed like a rock star in his prime.

          Think David Lee Roth circa 1984.

      • Cory says:

        FYI: The G&M just endorsed the CPC…but not Harper lol

        What’s that about personal attacks on politicians?

        • Cath says:

          Cory – it just proves that the MEDIA…at least THIS one have been leading the personal charge against the man, not the party from the get-go.

  8. Mike says:

    Not to under estimate Ford Nation, but I wonder about how much of an effect they will have on the federal vote.

    There is no love lost between the Fords and Kathleen Wynne. Both Doug and Rob have openly stated on many occasions that she is doing a poor job of running the province and should be replaced by a PC premier.

    So where was Ford Nation during the last Ontario provincial election? You would think that they would have come out in droves to defeat the Ontario Liberals. Yet the Liberals won all 3 Etobicoke seats and all but 3 Toronto seats. And the three that they didn’t win went to the NDP not the Conservatives.

  9. Jake says:

    But the real question is… can you imagine Justin running our economy?

    I’m not saying no forever, but…

    • Ted H says:

      I can’t imagine Harper running our economy. You know, actually running it, actually doing something to advance the country and help people instead of just sitting on his hands, cutting programs and touting his low taxes. But then that would be progressive wouldn’t it, and that’s not what he’s all about.

    • KBab says:

      The problem I have with this line of questioning is two-fold, first it makes the inherent assumption that our Parliamentary Democracy is a one man show and was designed to operate as such. Secondly, Harper is against such a thing anyway, he is against government involvement in the economy.

      The economy in Harper’s neo-liberal universe is the dictate of Corporations and it is the governmen’ts job to get out of the way. That means abandoning regulations, including on the environment and work place safety, and letting the market self regulate.

      Harper runs on saying he can manage the economy better when his intention is to hand over the reigns to the largest corporations.

      So, ya, Trudeau would manage the economy the better, because Liberals still believe that government has a role to play in regulating the market. And so do the NDP.

      The Conservatives want to have it both ways, but it is a tautology at best; “we would manage the economy better because we wouldn’t manage it.”

    • Jack D says:

      I think the real question is do people really want to see Harper “run” the economy any longer?

      Viewing Harper as an experienced steward of the economy is a lot easier when we’ve seen him in this role for the past decade. It’s a bit fallacious to suggest that only Harper can do the job considering he had no experience in the job himself prior to being elected to government.

      You should go back in time and ask voters in 2004 if they thought Harper could manage the economy. Evidently, they didn’t. Despite all the shortcomings of the Liberals, voters chose Paul Martin; someone they believed was capable of doing so.

      Not too long after, voters gave the crusader from Calgary-Southwest a chance because they had enough of the Liberals.

      I believe it was Jean Chretien who said governments are voted out, never in. This election my friend, is a referendum on Stephen Harper, not Justin Trudeau.

      • Vancouverois says:

        In 2004, the Liberals did not attack Harper on the economy. They did point to Martin’s tenure as Finance Minister as evidence that he could handle the economy; but their attacks on the Conservatives were based on accusations of social conservatism (or, you know, “guns in our streets”). And that was what made people hesistant, not fears about the economy.

        • Jack D says:

          I think you’ve misunderstood the point I was trying to make.

          The assumption that one is just not ready based on the perceived lack of experience implies an innate incapability of leadership qualities or competency while on the job.

          In the 2004 election, Paul Martin’s financial acumen was very much a major selling point of him as a leader, it may not have been a direct attack on Stephen Harper but it implied an absence of the very qualities Martin held. In this election, Conservatives have made economic stewardship a major point of contention (while some may argue, not so successfully) and have been absolute in their criticisms of Justin Trudeau’s perceived inexperience and incompetence in managing the economy of government.

          Nevertheless, the whole argument in itself is redundant in this election due to the fact that, as I said, this election has turned into a referendum on Stephen Harper, not on Justin Trudeau. I would suggest readers to take a look at the article Don Martin wrote today, it perhaps sums up best the driving force behind election 42.

  10. The Observer says:

    As I foretold:

    The polls are closing the (fictional) liberal lead (Nanos was not a small shift but a very big one – 2pts in a single day of three day rolling, meaning that day showed six point shift)

    This is not changing voter intent but Nanos recognizing voter models all along over counted lib votes

    The over counting is due to long recognized voter assumptions that the young/left vote a fraction of the registered pop

    The likely voter model (the gold standard in polling) was intentionally abandoned, replaced with vague provisos about “it all depends on turnout” – translation: the CPC will do better than the polls say but we won’t overtly show that in a accurate polling model (Google Gallup model for an example)

    The polling chickens are now. Pking home to roost: watch Nanos spike in CPC support in next two days (too little too late in my estimation)

    CPC will finish with over 38% good for a strong minority/slim majority

    • Matt says:

      As a CPC voter I hope you’re right. But don’t get cocky.

      The movement has been with the polls MOE, and David Akin reported yesterday the CPC campaign is feeling good BUT the source called the election a “jump ball”

      To me that means it’s still up in the air and anyone can win.

    • BlueGritr says:

      “CPC will finish with over 38% good for a strong minority/slim majority”. Seriously? For that to happen, the Conservatives will need to win at least five seats in the 416 and dominate in the rest of the GTA. Not happening, and Harper knows it. The rest of the way, Justin will be wise to run a peekaboo campaign (like his father did in 1980) and cruise to victory. He’s got this one in the bag if he doesn’t screw up.

    • Maps Onburt says:

      I think you are dead on with respect to Nanos. I’ve been calling BS on his polls for a while now – his BC numbers are way off anyone elses. The EKOS numbers yesterday showed a strong shift towards the Conservatives and even Nanos is moving that way as you suggest. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I don’t think Canadians want to reward any of these three with a majority and every time they get close, they get smacked back down.

      I just spent the morning driving across three ridings in the north end of the GTA (Simcoe County) to pick up some parts. These ridings were created when they split up this year from some formerly Conservative ridings to account for population growth. There is only an incumbent in one of them. They have gone blue and red in the past Federally.

      If you were only looking at colours, you’d see a sea of Red signs – probably outnumbering Blue two to one. BUT looking a tiny bit deeper, what you quickly come to realize is that most of the Red signs are on corners and vacant land. The Blue signs are on people’s lawns and businesses. On my drive home (80k through rural routes), I counted at least 3 Blue signs on a lawn for every Red one. The orange and green signs were ONLY on corners and vacant lands (and always grouped in piles). I know on my street there are a few die hard Liberals that always have massive signs on their front lawns but I haven’t seen any “new ones” and they are outnumbered by Blue ones at least 5 to 1. I don’t have one and neither do my immediate neighbors but I also know we would all crawl over broken glass to Conservative.

      I really don’t think you can accurately poll from doing a sign count but it does tell me that the Liberal “momentum” isn’t really strong in Simcoe County and that these seats will swing solidly Tory. It wasn’t even close when we elected Patrick Brown a few weeks ago. Wynn is despised here and what she’s doing with the falls at Bala have people in an uproar.

  11. Kelly says:

    I don’t see how this squares with the fear mongering Harper has engaged in in the South Asian community in places like Brampton and Lower Mainland BC. If the Liberals can’t use this to paint Harper as the phony he is, and the disrespect he is showing socially conservative new Canadians (does he think they are simpletons?)

    As for the shy Tory vote being willing to crawl over broken glass to get to the polls on Monday, go ahead. The rest of us will be there right beside you…two of us for every one of you. 3 million people already voted early — and judging by what I was hearing at the polls — in a seat the cons won with 52% of the vote last time — Harper is in trouble.

    • Kelly says:

      Should be…If the liberals can’t use this against the cons then they really have a problem

    • Matt says:

      So what were you hearing?

      Were you watching every person who made anti Harper comments mark their ballot for the Liberal or NDP candidate to confirm their actions matched their words?

      To make the leap of connecting the advanced turnout to bad news for the CPC is based soley on your own bias.

      • Kelly says:

        Everyone has biases but, historically, high turnout at advance polls means bad news for incumbents. No guarantees, of course, but then there is no guarantee that the supposed loyal conservative voters will show up and there won’t be a surprise turnout of young voters and aboriginal voters. Worked for Obama.

        • Maps Onburt says:

          Around here, half the people are closing up their cottages and heading south for the Winter. I know a bunch of die hard Conservatives that voted early so they could get away before the snow flies (we’re calling for up to 15 cms tonight around here). I wouldn’t be so sure that all those advance pollsters means a strong ABC turnout.

        • Matt says:

          2011 advanced was up big over 2008. Worked out OK for the incumbent.

          Could it signal bad news comig for Harper? Of course, just as it could signal bad news for Trudeau and Mulcair. We’ll know what it meant Monday.

          But remember every party had a real push on to get their supporters out the advanced polls. An increased advanced turnout doesn’t necessarily mean there will be an increase in overall turnout.

      • Cath says:

        Pretty much Matt.

    • Cory says:

      Voter turnout increase from 59% in 2008 to 61% 2011 and the incumbent Harper went from minority to majority. Just saying.

    • DougM says:

      Advanced polls are a relatively new thing and are getting bigger and bigger turnouts each time. I voted in the advanced polls this time around but not last. My motivation was because I wanted to avoid long lines on the 19th (backfired). At my polling station the average person in line was retirement age. I don’t think anyone can accurately say what the large advanced polls mean until those votes are counted.

      • The Doctor says:

        Good point. I’ve voted in every election for 35 years now, and I voted in an advance poll this time out for the first time in my life. Definitely more awareness of this option. BTW, no meaningful wait where I voted. I’m sure that if Harper wins, any long wait times at advance polls will be cited by Harper-haters as some deliberate voter-suppression tactic by Evil Lord Harper.

  12. A. Voter says:

    No one should be surprised that pollsters paid by the media will tell us the race is tightening and we should tune into the media that pay them to find out what will happen on election night.

  13. PJ says:

    Warren may have a valid point regarding “shy” Tories. The older white male voter who is afraid to say what he really thinks because of political correctness.
    Perhaps this is my Liberal bias, but I think his better half may be right in her assessment that Harper may have gone to far with the race-baiting Islamaphobia.

    With respect to the 2012 election of Alison Redford, the polls may have been accurate in predicting that Wildrose was going to form a majority goverment. In the final week, at which point all of the major pollsters stopped polling. It was at this point when a Wildrose candidate in Calgary made a comment about “the white advantage” and a candidate in the Edmonton area had old blog entries about gays being made public. The problem was not these two candidates, the problem was Danielle Smith instead of rebuking them, remained silent. Consequently both the mayors of Calgary and Edmonton called her out for her silence. When people would ask around the office water cooler, “Will you be voting?” what they were really asking was: Will you be voting PC? (as that was the only party in a position to stop a Wildrose victory).

    In Quebec I suspect there may have been some soul searching that resulted in enough Quebec voters to say to the effect, “We are better than this (the QC Values Charter)”
    Of course I could be completely out to lunch. We shall find out on Monday night.

    • Cory says:

      What people keep forgetting about the niqab debate in QC is that what Harper is proposing is exactly what the QC Liberal government is currently enacting which has a lot of support in that province.

    • DougM says:

      “Perhaps this is my Liberal bias, but I think his better half may be right in her assessment that Harper may have gone to far with the race-baiting Islamaphobia.”

      Islam isn’t a race and the niqab isn’t part of Islam. Over 80% of Canadians support the ban on the niqab during the citizenship ceremony and over 75% see it as a symbol of oppression. There is no “baiting” there, simply something the overwhelming majority of Canadians agree on. In fact it is one of the few if not the only thing Canadians agree on this election.

      • PJ says:

        In 1939 80% of Canadians supported the internment of Japanese-Canadians without due process and the Canadian government’s policy of “None is Too Many” denying Jews fleeing Europe, refugee status. Based on your logic that 80% of Canadians support banning the niqab, are you suggesting the internment of Japanese Canadians and the policy of “None is Too Many” were morally justified?

  14. Ridiculosity says:

    Shy Tories? Older, white male voters?

    All of the ones I know are voting for Trudeau this election.

    • DougM says:

      Pauline Kael

      “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.”

      • Cory says:

        Rember the quote from the Dem organizer when Reagan won:

        “I don’t understand how he won. Nobody I know voted for him!”

    • The Doctor says:

      I don’t know that I’ve ever seen anyone claim that “shy Tories” are only, or predominantly, older white males. Of course, I have seen many progs and lefties claim that the only people who vote conservative are angry white males from Alberta — who apparently comprise 30 percent or so of Canada’s electorate.

  15. Joel says:

    For conservative voters, we only have one option. For progressive voters, there are two options.

    It’s that simple.

    Are there shy conservatives? I.e. people who would never tell anyone they secretly vote conservative? Yes. People like me – older white upper-middle class males. We are fairly happy with the status quo, and don’t want it changed unless there’s a damn good reason. There’s a lot of us and we do vote.

    Until the progressive parties combine it will be difficult to beat the Conservatives.

  16. Derek Pearce says:

    This may be a duplicate, captcha hole again, anyhow my point was that Doug got 34% of the vote, big whoop, that would boost Harper 3% *if* it boosts him outside Etobicoke & Scarborough at all. This is of very little help nationally and will indeed put off more than a few undecideds. And even if Harper does manage 34%, he’s in a minority and is toast.

    • Matt says:

      You forget Doug entered the race well after it started, with only around 4 or 5 weeks left iirc (Toronto has loooong elections), had to fundraise from scratch, and was polling well behind in 3rd at under 20% in most polls.

      If the election day was 10 days later, he’d have won.

  17. Jack D says:

    The argument being made to defend the presence of the Fords is inherently fallacious. The validity of the strategic vote targeting here isn’t what at issue, its the matter of what Rob Ford represents as an individual.

    Love/hate, agree/disagree with the Fords, the issue here is that the values that Stephen Harper purports to hold are directly in contradiction to the dark reality of Ford. While Ford Nation may be loyal to their identity, the broader Conservative voter isn’t. Step outside of the GTA and ask voters in rural Manitoba what they think of Rob Ford’s behaviour and the association with which Harper is appearing so warm to. It’s damn near impossible to reconcile such a cleavage of judgement between the two and the dichotomy of messaging taking place.

    If pot is bad for Trudeau, crack is just as worse for Harper. He shouldn’t have associated himself with someone so controversial and out of step with the “Canadian values” Harper is trying to sell. He can’t keep playing coy with the situation without looking hypocritical.

  18. Matt says:

    Not that I’m saying newspaper editorial board endorsements mean anything to anyone anywhere, but the Globe and Mail just gave a rather strange one.

    They endorsed the Conservatives, but not Harper.

    Didn’t realize that’s an option on the ballot come election day.


    And the Ottawa Citizen endorsed the CPC as well. Glen McGregor’s head must have exploded after seeing that.

    • Vancouverois says:

      Apparently this isn’t the first time the G&M has done this. I hear that in 2000, they endorsed the Liberals on the condition that they dump Chrétien.

      And as it turns out, that’s what happened. So maybe this is an encouraging sign for the Conservatives. (Though the Liberal track record after Chrétien left is not something they necessarily want to imitate…)

  19. lou nickols says:

    INTERESTING…The Liberal leaning G&M posted an editorial endorsing the CPC as deserving another mandate, but that Harper”s personal shelf life has expired … Im CP , Im good with that ……………http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/the-tories-deserve-another-mandate-stephen-harper-doesnt/article26842506/

  20. Paul Raposo says:

    I find it amazing that so many people who support Rob–with a history if drug use–and Doug–with a history of drug dealing–are the same people who oppose legalized pot and safe injection sites.

    • Kelly says:

      They aren’t the same people, which is why if the conservatives lose the party will be blown apart in an orgy of nasty in-fighting between the so-con loons and the ayn rand libertarian crazies. The two have only held together because each side likes low taxes. Except one side wants small government, and the other wants to create an authoritarian snitch state that tells people what they can and can’t go with their gonads. The two are incompatible, long-term. When Harper goes, the whole thing blows up which is why it is important for NDP voters to hold their noses this one time and vote Liberal across most of the country. A Liberal minority would be best with the NDP forcing electoral reform once and for all then we can stop this charade called first past the post and end the phony outcomes for good.

    • The Doctor says:

      Your post is premised on some rather faulty assumptions. First off, people might have voted for Ford while disapproving of his crack use and/or disapproving of his brother’s past conduct. Perhaps they just liked Rob’s policies, or disliked his opponents’ policies. More importantly, though, you seem to be assuming that all conservative voters oppose legalized pot and safe injection sites, which is an idiotic assumption. I know lots of conservatives who smoke pot and have no problem with safe injection sites. Liberals and lefties seem to not grasp the fact that there are lots of people, particularly urban professionals, who vote conservative for fiscal and economic reasons but who are socially quite liberal (or libertarian). The related huge fallacy is thinking that everyone who votes for a party agrees with everything in their platform. The only party with a platform that I agree with 100 percent is a one-person party with me as the only member. I suspect that’s true for most people who aren’t kool-aid drinking partisan zombies (i.e., most people).

      • Wayne says:

        Scott takes issue with your final sentence.

      • Paul Raposo says:

        Liberals and lefties seem to not grasp the fact that there are lots of people, particularly urban professionals, who vote conservative for fiscal and economic reasons but who are socially quite liberal (or libertarian). –

        Libertarians are just pot smoking right wingers.

        Some of the most viciously anti-gay clap trap I heard during the entire equal marriage debate over a decade ago came from these libertarians–who profess freedom for all as long as the freedoms they want are the freedoms libertarians feel like giving them.

        And if they want fiscal responsibility why would they ever vote conservative? Some of the worst fiscal managers this country has ever seen ran as conservatives, present gov’t included.

        Rob Ford’s popularity was premised on his anti-gay bigotry, as evidenced by some of his most ardent supports being anti-gay themselves. Which leaves one scratching their head at the likes of Nash The Slash who only came out towards the end of his life, yet stumped for Rob Ford believing he was the great low tax messiah. Sadly Nash didn’t live long enough to see what utter horseshit that was.

  21. ottlib says:

    It is the last week of the election. If you really want to see how it is going just look at where the leaders of each party is campaigning.

    Mr. Trudeau has been campaigning in ridings and regions currently held by his opponents. Further I believe it has been confirmed that he will be heading to Calgary this weekend to campaign there. When this election started (you know back when Moses was a pup) would any commentator on this website have ever conceived of the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada spending the weekend before election day campaigning in ALBERTA? If you had you would have been accused of smoking a real good sample of the stuff Mr. Trudeau wants to legalize. Does anybody believe Mr. Trudeau would head to Alberta in the final days if the Liberals believed things were going badly in their campaign?

    Contrast that with Mr. Harper who has been campaigning in ridings and regions currently held by Conservatives. Even today he is on Quebec City, the one area of Quebec where he is strong. Further his weekend is going to include a rally with Rob Ford. I know that Ford Nation is very loyal to him but the rest of us consider him to be a bad joke. He is a laughingstock. It is widely believed that Mr. Harper does not even like the Ford brothers and he certainly does not agree with some of their “life choices”. Does anybody believe that Mr. Harper would share the stage, less than 48 hours before the polls open on Monday morning, with a man he dislikes and who is widely perceived to be the punchline to a bad political joke if the Conservative campaign was all rainbows and unicorns?

    Finally, Mr. Mulcair is in Quebec. That is supposed to be his strongest region. Just three days ago he stated that he was shooting for a majority government. Well if that is the case then get the hell out of Quebec. Unless, of course the NDP campaign is seeing something in that province that does not make them feel so secure in hanging on to most of the seats they currently occupy in that province.

    This election could still hold a surprise at the end but I believe by just observing what the leaders are doing we can discern the most likely outcome.

    The Liberals are likely to win. I still believe it will be a majority but we will see.

    The Conservatives will likely come in second. I believe that their share of the vote will likely be much lower than what the polls are telling us. A political party does not spend 11 straight weeks playing to its base if it believes that base is secure. It would not surprise me one bit if it is revealed that a sizable chunk of that base decides to sit out this election or vote for another party.

    The NDP will likely come in third. When the dust settles it will be well back everywhere, including in Ontario and Quebec.

    • MississaugaPeter says:

      When you have only 35 MPs almost every riding across the country is currently held by an opponent.

      When you have a majority all you need to do is retain those ridings. You don’t have to step in any of your opponent’s ridings.

    • littlemissbliss says:

      someone is getting 81 seats. I call it the Kessel effect because someone is leaving town. Book it.

    • Vancouverois says:

      Valid points. However, aren’t Toronto and Quebec City also still places where the Conservatives can make some gains? Certainly they hope to pick up more seats in the Quebec City area this time round.

    • Kelly says:

      Well a shredding truck has been outside the PMO all day. I take it as a sign the Con’s internal polling isn’t looking good for them. Liberals should come out with an announcement of new retroactive whistleblower legislation. Civil servants…leak late…leak often. You will be safe.

      • Paul Raposo says:

        As I wrote in another post Kelly, here in Cambridge lots of homes that had Gary Goodyear signs on their lawns no longer have them. Some have Bryan May signs, and others have none. These are people who always have a CPC signs and before that Reform party or PC signs. That they took them down–after the last candidate’s debate–says a lot about what’s happening in this election.

  22. fan590 says:

    Last time the Mop and Pale was taken serious was early 1990s.

  23. Derek Pearce says:

    1) You don’t look like Randy Quaid. Be thankful for that.
    2) Did you have to explain to your kids (if any of them listened to this) who Wolfman Jack was? That made me laugh, and feel old already!
    3) My hunch, and I hope I’m right especially after reading Ivison’s latest across-Canada-trip wrap up column, is that the antipathy to Harper is too much for the Conservatives to overcome. Harper is more widely despised than Cameron was back in May, and Cameron hasn’t been around long enough to wear out his welcome yet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *