Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:59 am Post subject: Why was Rob Ford elected and lessons to learn from it
I am going to start a topic here that will probably cause a shit storm, but with everything happening now, I think it is something people should start thinking about.
My belief is that Ford was elected Mayor simply as a reaction to the Miller years as mayor. I believe that while his policies were for the most part good, that Miller and his followers on council grew arrogant and far too dismissive of other people’s views, and it cost us Ford.
Many people would say that the things that Councillor Ford harped on (office budgets and such) are not that important in the real scheme of things, and in fact for the most part are fine the way they are. The problem is that normal working people don't see it that way. Talk about billions wasted through mismanagement and people are outraged for a few days, and then forget. It's because people don't relate to amounts that large.
However you talk about a $12k retirement party paid through an office budget, then people relate to that. The amounts are more imaginable. People's debts are that large. They need that kind of money to buy a car or for a house down payment. And it takes a while to save.
The attitude of entitlement (and as much as I would vote for him against Ford, I did get that impression off of Miller) is what really set people against Miller. He did not dare run again, because as much as we would all like to believe differently, if he had run then, Miller would have lost, and lost badly.
Most people really don't care about party affiliations at the municipal level (and to be honest, I agree with keeping the parties out of city politics) they don't care that Ford is a Con or that Miller is NDP. They care about city services. They care that the Potholes are filled and the libraries are open. They care about the Fire Department and the Police. They care about the transit system, so they can get to work, and they want the city clean and the garbage picked up. Most things else are pretty much extra.
I honestly wish that Ford had remained a Councillor, as he was effective in that role. He was great for the people in his ward (even his enemies grudgingly agree with that) and he provided a voice that was useful in reminding people about the appropriate care of the taxpayer’s money. I would never want him in a major role, but at least people of a more conservative bent would see him as their voice. And even if I mostly disagree with him, I believe all sides deserve a voice.
The fact is though he was elected Mayor. With the largest percentage ever. Far greater then Miller ever managed. You ignore that at your peril. I blame Miller and Rae and Bussin and Giabrone and others of that group. They showed a remarkable tin ear when it came to dealing with people who disagreed with them. At the city level you have to cut through the ideologies, and listen, even to those you disagree with. Oppose them if you will, but don't denigrate, don't be dismissive. People will say that the councillors opposing him also have mandates, and that is true. I am simply saying that you can’t ignore the mandate that Ford has. And his is larger than any individual councillors.
Currently we are having the transit debate. People of goodwill can disagree. And it's not a right versus left issue. I personally support Subways over LRT's, and would agree with a targeted tax hike that was directed to paying for it on an incremental basis. However I acknowledge there are legitimate arguments on either side (and please don't make this thread about transit, if that is wanted I will start another thread. This thread is about messaging in politics and how it can be improved)
Ford can argue that he has a mandate to get rid of the LRT's, and it is a legitimate argument. He campaigned on it and won. People saying they voted for him and now saying they disagreed with that platform plank get no sympathy from me. He was at least honest about his intentions. Just like people saying they voted for Harris but didn't expect him to actually keep his promises. What did you really expect? (Sorry, small rant there. I opposed Harris with every fibre of my being, but he was elected twice, and he did what he campaigned on. He was destructive and cruel. He was not illegitiment. Complaining that he did what he promised when you voted for him gets no sympathy from me)
I honestly believe if there was an election today, Ford would take Scarborough, Etobicoke and North York (unless you live in Scarborough and have to depend on the LRT, you cannot imagine how hated it is out here, and lets not mention the debacle that was the St Clair right of way, sorry transit talk there, will keep it to the other thread if people want it) The rest of the city would be against Ford. That leaves a very divided city. And Ford could easily win in that scenario. He could also lose, but his support seems pretty solid.
Procedural tricks like Clayton Ruby's will fail, (hopefully) because if it actually succeed, the people who voted for him would as a reaction vote for him again, and if he was not running because of a court order, then I could easily see his brother winning as proxy. And wouldn't that be fun
!!!!
To beat him fully, someone needs to reach out to at least part of his following, and while not always agreeing with them, at least make sure that there concerns are at least acknowledged and considered. Someone like a Vaughn or a Mike Layton needs to approach the people in Scarborough and Etobicoke and demonstrate that they will not be ignored in a future administration. Miller was great for Downtown, but lousy for the parts of the city outside the core.
It is entirely possible that the needs of the core are incompatible with the outer edges of the city. Personally I believe that. The megacity is a flop, and should be disbanded, with transit going to the province as their responsibility. But as long as we are stuck together, if we want a progressive leader in city hall, they need to do a better job of at least listening to the concerns of the old boroughs. Otherwise we will enter a long period of deep acrimony. And I think Ford does a better job of acrimony then others. We are simply handing the city to him this way.
I guess what I really want is for the councillors opposing Ford, and everyone else opposing Ford, to do a better job of not showing contempt for those that oppose them. That attitude is what got us Ford. Now others will say that those on Fords side are worse, and in some cases they are right (not all though if people are honest with themselves). I just don’t accept the “he started it “defence as an argument. I want the progressive side to be better than that. And on the practical side, you don’t convince people to switch to your side by calling them idiots. Just saying.
I'm going to stop my rant now. I would appreciate your thoughts at to this. If you disagree with me, I hope you can change my mind, as I find this situation quite depressing. As well I want to see a brighter future then more of Ford. I'm just afraid that his opposition is going the wrong way about it, and there will be a backlash that no one is prepared for.
My other request is please keep the comments clean. Some of the Anti-Ford vitriol out there is foul. I disagree with him strongly (for the most part. As they say a broken watch is right twice a day) but reading many people's comments against him online is disgusting (truthfully from both sides actually) I myself have been dealing with being overweight for a long time, and despise the weight comments that many people opposed to him seem to always throw. If I am maligning you with this request, I sincerely apologize. I guess I am over sensitive to a lot of what I am reading online lately.
Anyway, this is Tobey, awaiting a response. _________________ In the land of the witless, the half-wit is king, which explains an awfull lot about us if you think about it......
While I don't doubt that the loyal Sun readership did indeed vote for Ford as an anti-Miller candidate, my opinion is that the majority voted for Ford due to one huge perceived similarity between Ford and Miller: neither represented an "insider" position in the public imagination. They didn't vote for Smitherman or Hall because they're sick and tired of the cronyism that accompanies almost every "professional politician" into office.
Obviously this perception of both Ford and Miller is flawed, but I think it speaks to the massive discontent experienced by the electorate, however unformed that discontent may be.
You'll see the same trend again when Adam Vaughan inevitably challenges Ford for the job.
I also disagree that Miller was unpopular in the suburbs. He would have won again handily if he ran against Ford. He would have destroyed Ford.
And I don't know if you're conflating Clayton Ruby with "the opposition." I see Ruby as an integral check to the mayor's power. Ford's obscene actions begged Ruby's reaction. I don't want to live in a country where Ford's law breaking goes unchallenged.
I guess we will have to disagree about the unpopularity of Miller in the burbs. Most folk I speak to can barely say his name without spitting. Even those who despise Ford now.
As for Ruby, I do not believe his or his clients assertions that this move was driven entirely by altruism about the sanctity of the process. I really believe this is more driven by opposition to Ford being the mayor. And most people reading the papers (not just the Sun either) believe the same. A sentiment I agree with wholeheartedly. I just think that if Ruby were to succeed, that voters who are not politically savvy will look at this as Fords opponents using procedural tricks to overthrow an overwhelming electoral victory.
Should Ford have voted on the motion? Of course not. Was it a conflict of interest. Of course yes. Did he financially gain. I don't think so.
My main worry is a judge looking at the law may decide that he/she has no choice but to remove Ford from office, but then decide that since the ban on running again is entirely up to his/her discretion that Ford immediately be allowed to run again. That would be an entirely divisive election. One I fear he would win again. Which if we are being honest would give him an even stronger mandate.
Even if he was not allowed to run again, it is obvious that his brother could run as a surrogate, and if you are going to overturn the last election, there will be many people who will be pissed at being what they view as disenfranchised. They won't care about the politics involved, and many people will start having their eyes glaze over when you try to explain why he was loosing his mayors seat over $3k to his football charity. There will be a backlash.
I want to beat Ford. I don't want him as mayor. But I want that accomplished in a way that we will be able to build a sustainable movement that will build this city to what it should be, and I fear if Ford is removed by legal tricks, as legally legitimate as they may be, those who replace Ford will not have the moral authority to really heal the divisions that exist. The people who currently believe in Ford would be too pissed.
The progressive side needs to find a way to reach out to them, to build bridges there. I currently do not hear anything being done to accomplish that. _________________ In the land of the witless, the half-wit is king, which explains an awfull lot about us if you think about it......
I like to think that if Ford keeps fleeing from meetings like he did this week he'll be the architect of his own public humiliation and downfall.
Speaking of which, I really can't wait to see the email ronb writes to the mayor's office to commemorate that pitiful display. Please try to share it with us, ronb.
Polling in the weks before the election showed that Miller would've beaten Ford AND Smitherman handily, he had like a 65% approval rating at the end of his term. The garbage strike was old news by then. If you live in Etobicoke, I can agree with the vitriol he provoked. If you live in Scarborough, not so much, way more complex there.
If Smitherman hadn't smeared Giambrone out of the race, Giambrone would' be mayor right now, IMO. From here it looks like it's up to Either Josh or Adam to beat Stintz. I suspect Rob will retire to spend more time with his "family", perhaps even his term is done. I prefer Vaughan obviously, but he's pretty polarizing. Stintz would be a disaster.
How's Rob's weight loss thing going, or has he given up on that now?
It's pretty easy for a few polls to show Miller with a high approval rating when everyone knew he was not running, and he did not have to face any of the other candidates in debates. I truly believe if he had run, then he would not be nearly as high in the polls.
As for Giambrone, he is the one who had the really bad lapse in judgement. I don't give a damn about his personal life, but he did conduct himself foolishly. I don't think he would have lasted a long campaign. No disrespect, because I do generally enjoy your posts, but I do believe you are reading what you would have like to have seen with what was really there. Adam Giambrone was not a strong candidate.
And in a serious discussion of the politics involved here, can we please avoid bringing up his weight. The fact that he is trying to get healthy, and encourage others to do so, is the one thing I currently respect him for. And I am saying that as a very overweight man. I am probably being over sensitive here, and if so I apologize, but I generally find comments about his weight in the context of this thread to be insulting.
Again I don't think that was your intention, it's just I think the (justified) dislike of Ford has caused many decent people to cross boundaries that should not be crossed. _________________ In the land of the witless, the half-wit is king, which explains an awfull lot about us if you think about it......
I truly believe if he had run, then he would not be nearly as high in the polls.
No one would have run against Miller. Smitherman and Ford are sleazy opportunistic toadies of big business. They had the polling data to know they'd get creamed.
Quote:
How's Rob's weight loss thing going, or has he given up on that now?
Your emails to Ford are the best things ever. I'm not gonna answer that question and deprive the world of the opportunity to read your attempt to obtain this information straight from the horse's mouth.
The fact that he is trying to get healthy, and encourage others to do so, is the one thing I currently respect him for.
If I believed he was genuine, I would respect him for it. It was purely a diversion campaign, sprung to take the heat off his budget failures. I say this as a marginally overweight feller who lost 60 pounds last year (and gained back 15 this year). His weight loss campaign could not have been more badly planned, and its inevitable failure will be immeasurably worse for overweight people than if he had just gone on describing himself as 300 pounds of fun (if your idea of fun is racism, red baiting and lies). That he is odious AND overweight and will prove unable to lose the weight will end up being a mark against all overweight people, IMO. Proving the stereotypes true - weak, greedy, immoral and not trustworthy, etc.
I dunno about Giambrone - he's an excellent speaker, articulate and intelligent, drove the right wing crazy, would've been there to scoop up the Smitherman votes as he collapsed. I am under no illusions about him - but this whole thing about his private life is just bullshit in my opinion, our current mayor was arrested and convicted of DUI, arrested and convicted of assault, arrested and had the charges withdrawn for domestic abuse etc etc etc, why Gimabrone's sex life made him a non-starter is a bit baffling. I wish he'd rode it out, myself. Not that he's a favourite by any stretch.
I can agree that your view of Fords weight loss campaign has a high probability of being right. My view however is that he is honestly doing it to help. My view of Ford is that he honestly believes that what he is doing and campaigning for is right. The fact that I think he is wrong more often then not notwithstanding I do have a small amount of respect for that. The fact that I think he is batshit fucked up (pardon my language) means I want him out after the next election.
I guess I think Ford drinks his own kool-aid.
As for Giambrone, I just think that he did not show the sense necessary to be mayor. I don't think comparing him to Ford is not the way to go. We all know his story and there was no secret about Fords scandals. In a sick way it provides him a supposed anti elitist edge (in a rather disgusting way) as a lot of people look at all the charges against Ford as a smear campaign, It's not, as most of it is deserved, but most people don't watch politics like people on this site. They watch it once a week if their lucky. All they really know about Ford is that he wants to cut taxes, bring subways and fuck the unions. Unfortunately, in this atmosphere that resonates.
Given what happened with the St Clair right of way, I don't think Giambrone would have won as councillor if he had run again. _________________ In the land of the witless, the half-wit is king, which explains an awfull lot about us if you think about it......
I dunno about Giambrone - he's an excellent speaker, articulate and intelligent, drove the right wing crazy, would've been there to scoop up the Smitherman votes as he collapsed. I am under no illusions about him - but this whole thing about his private life is just bullshit in my opinion, our current mayor was arrested and convicted of DUI, arrested and convicted of assault, arrested and had the charges withdrawn for domestic abuse etc etc etc, why Gimabrone's sex life made him a non-starter is a bit baffling. I wish he'd rode it out, myself. Not that he's a favourite by any stretch.
Giambrone probably could have ridden it out, had it just been one fling. But we had allegations of multiple relationships as well as Giambrone apparently telling them that it his common law partner was just for show (this part of course, made him look like a pompous asshole). Of course, none of that stuff was illegal and any moral component was purely between Giambrone and his partner.........but as with the Clinton case(s) in the 90s, I thought the optics were just plain bad. Giambrone seems to have agreed back then and eventually dropped his bid. In retrospect, he probably could (and should) have stuck it out. Especially since, as you point out, Ford is hardly an angel in these matters. _________________ I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford
My view of Ford is that he honestly believes that what he is doing and campaigning for is right.
I suspect there is some truth to that. He is willing to lie, cheat and bully his way through life because he believes rules are for others - he is right no matter what he does. Unfortunately what he is campaigning for is not right in any way shape or form, AND he's an ignorant, lying, cowardly, cheating, bullying sack of shit to boot. I am unwilling to extend any courtesy or respect to him whatsoever, he has proven himself utterly unworthy of it over and over for decades now - he was an ignorant, entitled asshole in high school, and he's much worse now.
As for health initiatives - one of his first votes as mayor was to turn down free healthcare workers for Toronto from the province. He doesn't give two shits about anyone's health, including his own, clearly - he's a heavy drinker and junk food addict.
Miller didn't run.People didn't like Smitherman, some for homophobic reasons, some because he was an asshole and a terrible candidate with zero municipal experience, the Liberal version of John Tory. The polling pre-election was pretty clear, if Miller had run, he would've won handily. Also, if he'd run, Joe wouldn't have. Probably Smitherman wouldn't have either. Miller versus Ford? No contest.
As I said earlier we will just have to agree to disagree. In the wake of the garbage strike Miller would not have won anything. As well it's to easy to look into the past and see what we want to see. Ford was running a strong campaign not against the other candidates, but against the Miller years, and loath as I am to admit it, it did resonate. If Miller would have been forced to defend his record on the campaign trail, with the anger of the garbage strike so recent, I think Ford would have beat him walking. Remember he scored 48% of the vote. Miller in his 2 wins never came close to that. I don't think anyone who would have voted for Miller would have Ford as their 2nd choice anyway.
And by effective campaign I don't mean his platform. I mean the massaging was well thought out (Kouvalis: the Karl Rove of Toronto municipal politics) just that it carried a message that was consistant and resonated with a significant amount of people. _________________ In the land of the witless, the half-wit is king, which explains an awfull lot about us if you think about it......
Miller won with 57% in 06, he won in 42 of 44 wards. He was polling around 65% a few weeks before the 2010 election.
Yes. And the garbage strike wasn't a huge political issue by the time the election rolled around in late 2010. Ford won because first, he faced a deeply flawed candidate in Smitherman and a boring left choice in Pantalone. Second, he ran a blatantly dishonest populist campaign making promises he knew he couldn't keep such as balancing the budget without raising taxes or cutting services and by just "eliminating gravy" (yeah right). _________________ I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 14585 Location: Toronto, ON
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:15 am Post subject:
It's galling to think that if Miller had run again, he would still be mayor. He would have crushed Ford, and we would be spared the ludicrous spectacle that civic politics have become. _________________ "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
It's galling to think that if Miller had run again, he would still be mayor. He would have crushed Ford, and we would be spared the ludicrous spectacle that civic politics have become.
Would anyone here care to fill me in on the mindset of a voter who was all fired up about re-electing Miller, but, in Miller's absence, decided to leapfrog ideologically over Smitherman and Pantalone and support Ford?
Like, how would you complete the thought blurb: "Since I can't vote for Miller, I'll vote for Ford, because..."?
Would anyone here care to fill me in on the mindset of a voter who was all fired up about re-electing Miller, but, in Miller's absence, decided to leapfrog ideologically over Smitherman and Pantalone and support Ford?
Like, how would you complete the thought blurb: "Since I can't vote for Miller, I'll vote for Ford, because..."?
Well, recall that David Miller ran in 2003 as
• as a "good government" candidate,
• symbolized by a simple, evocative, constantly-messaged icon;
• as a familiar, multi-term councillor fighting for the top spot;
• against one or more outside establishment figures, running for mayor of Toronto as something of a lateral transfer;
• as an offsetting reaction to the previous mayor and council,
• symbolized by a capital project the previous mayor and council had largely committed to, and most of the citywide establishment was reasonably comfortable with, that the candidate was determined to do all he could never to build.
Ideology aside, the relative value of either of their claims to be more or less a good government candidate aside, the relative merits of the Island Bridge and Transit City aside – but how much attention do some voters pay to any of this, really? – you could sort of say that Rob Ford won the mayoralty with David Miller's playbook.
It also brings to mind how Conservative-NDP swing, bypassing any Liberals in the way, is a classic voting pattern in Western Canada.
As to some of their differences, there's also the argument that Toronto just tends to alternate mayoral styles.
You can see councillor and former city hall reporter Adam Vaughan make the case, (uh, somewhere in this 99 minute video; you can also see him talking about he and Shelley Carroll both contemplating running for mayor), that modern Toronto mayors tend to alternate between 'characters' and the 'competent.' Leslie Saunders character, Nathan Phillips competent. William Dennison character, David Crombie competent. John Sewell character, Art Eggleton competent. June Rowlands character, Barbara Hall competent. Mel Lastman character, David Miller competent. If you accept the premises, the pattern is independent of ideology; the leftiest here are Sewell, character, and Miller, then Hall, competent.
EDIT: This is in response to Corey's first reply. I'm reading his second one now.
Corey:
So, basically, as F. said earlier(I believe), Toronto voters liked Miller because he was anti-establishment, and so voted for Ford because he was the most anti-establishment candidate in 2010. Even though their preferred candidate, Miller, was the guy that Ford was painting as the establishment?
Quote:
you could sort of say that Rob Ford won the mayoralty with David Miller's playbook.
Well, I guess, in the same way that right-wingers and left-wingers generally win with each other's playbooks, in that they both claim to represent "the people" against "elites". But those words mean such completely different things depending on who's using them(the right means unions and civil servants are the elite, the left means millionaires), a voter would have to be pretty clueless to think he's getting the same thing from the right as he is from the left.
I realize that there are voters who respond to slogans deprived of any ideological understanding, though I am having a hard time getting my head around the idea that there are so many of them concentrated in the Toronto area. And also, that the deeper meaning of the slogans would be so invisble with a candidate like Ford. I mean, how many people REALLY thought he was the successor to David Miller?
And why wouldn't all those erstwhile Miller supporters have seen Pantalone as the legitimate heir?
And yes, where I'm going with this is that I think the polls showing all that potential Miller support in 2010 might have been a little off.
Quote:
It also brings to mind how Conservative-NDP swing, bypassing any Liberals in the way, is a classic voting pattern in Western Canada.
Yeah, I thought about that very example. But a difference there would be that, for historical reasons, there is a limited number of viable parties to choose from in those provinces. If you were, for example, a BC Socred in 1991, and you're pissed off because Vanderzalm's a weirdo and Rita Johnson is his hand-picked heir, you didn't have much choice but to vote NDP, because the Cons and the Libs just weren't on the radar.
And I don't think too many of the Socred defectors were telling pollsters "I'd really like to vote for Vanderzalm again, but since he's not running, I'll vote for Harcourt". Bascially, if you wanted Vanderzalm II, you would've voted for Rita Johnson.
that modern Toronto mayors tend to alternate between 'characters' and the 'competent.' Leslie Saunders character, Nathan Phillips competent. William Dennison character, David Crombie competent. John Sewell character, Art Eggleton competent. June Rowlands character, Barbara Hall competent. Mel Lastman character, David Miller competent. If you accept the premises, the pattern is independent of ideology; the leftiest here are Sewell, character, and Miller, then Hall, competent.
That's an interesting observation, but I'm gonna stop short of calling it an explanation. It essentially amounts to saying that Toronto voters elect people mayor because they want to be entertained, but then get tired of the entertainment, so elect technocrats, but then get bored with that so go back to the clowns.
And also: If you were a Toronto voter in 2010 looking for a "character", why would your preferred choice have been Miller? He was one of the "competents".
Ideology aside, the relative value of either of their claims to be more or less a good government candidate aside, the relative merits of the Island Bridge and Transit City aside – but how much attention do some voters pay to any of this, really? – you could sort of say that Rob Ford won the mayoralty with David Miller's playbook.
It also brings to mind how Conservative-NDP swing, bypassing any Liberals in the way, is a classic voting pattern in Western Canada.
I'd feel a lot better if a situation like this with Ford then caused some of those 'surface slogan' voters to realize how easily they get swindled by relying on such a shallow involvement in vetting candidates, and became motivated to understand the underlying ideologies a little more deeply.
Ideology aside, the relative value of either of their claims to be more or less a good government candidate aside, the relative merits of the Island Bridge and Transit City aside – but how much attention do some voters pay to any of this, really? – you could sort of say that Rob Ford won the mayoralty with David Miller's playbook.
It also brings to mind how Conservative-NDP swing, bypassing any Liberals in the way, is a classic voting pattern in Western Canada.
I'd feel a lot better if a situation like this with Ford then caused some of those 'surface slogan' voters to realize how easily they get swindled by relying on such a shallow involvement in vetting candidates, and became motivated to understand the underlying ideologies a little more deeply.
As far as I can tell, Rob Ford was usually pretty up-front about letting people know where he stood ideologically. Numerous quotes and videos(including the infamous police-board meeting) have him denouncing "socialists", "our socialist mayor", "the NDP agenda" etc.
I don't think he's ever really presented himself as a "post-ideology" type, like Elizabeth May or someone like that does.
No, but I think a fair number of people don't pay attention to what any of that means. To anybody who was paying attention during the campaign Ford's performance as mayor has run quite consistently to expectation; thus a fair number of voters didn't connect what was said in the campaign to what his tenure'd actually look like, as illustrated by the significant discrepancy between his popularity as mayor in reality and the strength of the vote that elected him while he was quite clearly broadcasting that this is the sort of mayor he'd be.
To be clear, I'm not saying that he was (exactly) dishonest and swindled the voters, I'm more saying that the voters (who elected him and now don't approve of his actual tenure) swindled themselves by not critically examining what any of the campaign rhetoric would actually mean.
The "post-ideology" types, however, are in a league of aggravation all their own.
In turn, on the case being made before, I like Miller and from what we know now expect he most likely would have won re-election in 2010, but he was looking vulnerable enough at the time.
I reckon most of his falloff was from voters relatively unsympathetic to municipal and TTC unions and bitter about their strikes.
Without Miller running, Smitherman faded as he had to run as his own man, and some of his right flank bled to Ford. With Miller in, "attack dog" Smitherman would have run a hard anti-Miller campaign.
For one thing, this would have probably done much better - could it have done much worse? - keeping the narrative late in the campaign away from what people didn't like about Smitherman.
Meanwhile, the Smitherman-Ford swing universe would have a reasonable strategic rationale to vote for Smitherman to keep out Miller.
Ford didn't break out of the pack, did he, until Miller had bowed out and the harsher spotlight really turned to Smitherman?
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 14585 Location: Toronto, ON
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:24 am Post subject:
voice of the damned wrote:
Quote:
that modern Toronto mayors tend to alternate between 'characters' and the 'competent.' Leslie Saunders character, Nathan Phillips competent. William Dennison character, David Crombie competent. John Sewell character, Art Eggleton competent. June Rowlands character, Barbara Hall competent. Mel Lastman character, David Miller competent. If you accept the premises, the pattern is independent of ideology; the leftiest here are Sewell, character, and Miller, then Hall, competent.
That's an interesting observation, but I'm gonna stop short of calling it an explanation. It essentially amounts to saying that Toronto voters elect people mayor because they want to be entertained, but then get tired of the entertainment, so elect technocrats, but then get bored with that so go back to the clowns.
And also: If you were a Toronto voter in 2010 looking for a "character", why would your preferred choice have been Miller? He was one of the "competents".
As someone who has been an interested observer of Toronto politics for quite some time, and a sometimes active participant, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me that Toronto voters vote regularly for the spectacle and then for someone to clean up the mess. During the periods of competent government, city politics is almost lethally boring and everyone tunes out. Eventually a character comes along and spices things up, gets the population's attention, and wins on the back of that. Sooner or later the character is revealed as a more-or-less incompetent boob, and the population decides they had better elect someone competent to fix the mess that the character created. With some characters, like Lastman, it takes longer for the city to cotton on. With others like Sewell it only takes the space of a single term. _________________ "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
I don't think it can be stated emphatically enough how despised Smitherman was in some quarters. His time as provincial health minister was utterly scandal ridden, and his insistence on his own correctness didn't help matters.
I don't think Ford actually ran as the anti-Miller candidate as much as he did the anti-McGuinty candidate. John Tory probably would have beat Ford. Though I'm sure Ford loved the anti-Miller ranting that the Sun indulged in during the campaign.
Quote:
And why wouldn't all those erstwhile Miller supporters have seen Pantalone as the legitimate heir?
I'm gonna sound like a jerk, but the majority of people can't distinguish between the three levels of government. If they can hold two names in their heads at ballot time they're ahead of the pack. To say nothing of their inability to tease out the differences in party platforms. I swear to god I know people who vote on criteria like "he looks nice" or "I trust him" with absolutely nothing of substance to back it up. It has to be said: a lot of Torontonians voted for the broom. Simple as that. At the last federal election a guy flipped out at my polling station in Montreal because he couldn't vote for Jack Layton on his ballot. Sure, Layton was born in Quebec, but try telling this guy that we somehow weren't trampling his right to vote for the one politician he knew by name. Sheesh.
For that small group of people who knew who Pantalone was, a bunch of them voted strategically for Smitherman because they didn't think Joe had a chance. They also failed to understand that the McGuinty Liberals are in many ways worse than the Harris Tories, and confused Smitherman with a leftist option.
...and do not discount the homophobia and the anti-immigrant sentiment that Smitherman and Joe had going against them. I ran into both a fair amount during that campaign.
Ford appealed to many people's vindictive side, and nobody onstage really called him on it in an effective way, so the uninformed felt justified in letting their vindictiveness out in the polling station - sticking it to those know it alls. I'm pretty sure if a credible adult figure were on stage saying "You are crazy, you're going to destroy the city with your lies you drug addict" more people's brain would've engaged and they would've refrained from letting their freak flag fly in the polling stations.
Ford gave everybody permission to misbehave - to get high and drink and drive and pretend there are no consequences to acting stupid. Miller porbably would've easily reminded people that grownups need to run things, not sociopathic spoiled children. That people were pining for him to run in large numbers at the end is where I figure that from.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Voting Centre
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Front Page
Links
Acceptable Use Policy
Donate
Today's Active Topics