Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Debate last night


So what happened in the debate? The answer is not very much. Wynne was under intense attack at points but managed to mostly hold the line. The attacks however did some damage, but not much.

Hudak did a pretty good job at being not-scary. He could have done better though.

However the loser IMO was Horwath. If you had built an "NDP talking points robot" it would have performed just as well. With Hudak potentially rising I see more and more NDPers switching to the Liberals to stop the Tories. Unlike when McGuinty was around, the Liberals are no longer too right wing to be worth throwing at the Tories; due to that and the vote balance that seems poorly suited for the Tories, it would seem we continue to be on track for a Liberal Majority, though one with less of a chance now.

6 comments:

  1. It seems as the post debate analysis has been 1. Hudak 2. Horwath 3. Wynne

    Hudak and Horwath held out their own and did better than I expected. The debate was Wynne's to lose and she did lose. She came off as too defensive in the beginning. Throughout the debate, Hudak and Horwath painted Wynne as someone untrustworthy, unethical, running a tired government and associated with cronyism.

    I felt Wynne could have done better at painting Hudak as too right-wing for the majority of Ontarians.

    On the other hand, would this debate change the dynamics of the campaign? Probably not. At best, it should solidify the PC and right-leaning vote.

    At the same time, I don't think the Liberal vote would be weakened that much. Liberals know about the party's past scandals and will still vote for the party - whether its due to the leader, local incumbent, progressive policies or anti-Hudak sentiment.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you are underestimating Horwath and the NDP in the seat projections. No way that incumbents Jagmeet Singh, Cheri Di Novo and Michael Prue are defeated. These popular incumbents should hold narrowly. The Liberals are not making a serious play for these ridings.

    There is no chance the Liberals win London West either. They simply are not putting an effort in that riding and Liberal co-tails are not strong enough for them to win on just the leader or the party. The NDP should be able to hold that riding, but the PCs are their main threat. Essex and Kenora - Rainy River will likely remain for the NDP, while Niagara Falls should be a toss up between PC/NDP.

    I think the Liberals will pick up Trinity Spadina, Davenport and Kitchener Waterloo from the NDP. These are the ridings, I see the Liberals putting serious effort in.

    Still, I can't imagine a scenario where Wynne does not remain premier after the election. PC vote may be solidified, but they are not in majority territory. PCs need to hold all their seats and win 17 new ones. Don't see that happening.

    ReplyDelete
  3. While I agree with Jay's sentiments that I think the NDP is being underestimated in this projection, and by the polls as well (especially in Northern Ontario), there is hardly "no way" or chance for the Liberals to grab any of those seats. Horwath started a downward trend in Toronto in 2011 that could cost her some of her more marginal core ridings, and London West is fertile ground for an easy swing back to the Liberals or, as could be the case, to the PCs. I don't think the NDP are in as solid a position as they'd like to be.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have no statistical evidence, only anecdotal evidence. However, for the first time since Rae Days practically every NDP supporter I know is actually openly talking about not voting NDP. If this is characteristic of other NDPers across the province, coupled with the possibility of a last minute swing of progressives frightened of Hudak, then the NDP could be in for a big fall. But I gave up actually predicting anything in politics so I wouldn't call this a prediction, only a feeling that it could go this way.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I get that you're a partisan Liberal, but does that really mean that you have to defend your party, no matter what reality is?

    Kathleen Wynne absolutely lost that debate, and the consensus is that Wynne was the "loser" in the debate.
    She seemed insincere, overly defensive, unsure, stuttering, and not authoritative. Her excuses just sounded desperate and phony.

    She seemed to lack a clear and concise message, and her talking points lacked any substance whatsoever (which is ironic, considering that "lacking substance" is the criticism that she has been attacking the other two leaders, especially Andrea Horwath with).

    Tim Hudak did surprisingly well, considering his absolutely nonsensical platform and questionable numbers backing up his policies.
    However, he did well because, regardless of how ludicrous his message was, it was concise and he stuck to it.
    He also did a very good job at not allowing Kathleen Wynne to brush the misuse of our tax dollars under the rug by feigning innocence and pretending to not have been involved in it.
    Probably not as good of a job as Andrea Horwath did, though.

    Andrea Horwath came off as very statesman-like. She had a clear and concise message, backed by a lot of substance and confidence. She was also very credible, sincere, likeable and personable.
    She actually did quite well in the debate, and managed to effectively communicate her message and where she is coming from.

    She certainly did way better than Kathleen Wynne did.

    I have to say; as a usual Liberal voter and supporter myself (although I am not blindly partisan), I was, and still am, very disappointed with the party, from McGuinty all the way through to Wynne, too.

    They have become untrustworthy, complacent, entitled-to-govern, and corrupt.

    I have become increasingly fatigued with their "flash left then turn right" modus operandi , where they campaign on the
    left, and once they've been elected by getting progressive voters' hopes up and duping them into voting for them, they abandon them (much like a womanizer promising a woman at a bar all kinds of love and promises and marriage if she would sleep with him; and then once she falls for it and he's used her to get what he wants, he reneges on his word).

    This was done by the federal Liberals in the 1993 election.
    It was certainly done by them provincially in 2003, with Dalton McGuinty promising all kinds of progressive things (university tuition freezes,no new regressive taxes...etc).
    Once they actually got in, though..well, we all know how THAT turned out, as the rest is history.

    This is why, not only was I NOT particularly surprised at the type of budget they tabled, but I found it predictable, and I am not at all enamoured by it. I have seen this political game from the Liberals before.

    This time around, I am (and I cannot believe I am actually saying this) not only not going to be voting Liberal, but I am seriously considering not being a self-declared supporter anymore, past this election.

    Also, whether I agree or disagree with those who say the Liberals and Horwath's NDP are "so similar" aside; if I were to assume that they ARE, then I would rather have the Ontario NDP as the government, with Andrea Horwath as Premier of Ontario.

    Basically, I'm giving my vote to my local NDP candidate (whom I actually do happen to like), and to the ONDP, headed by Andrea Horwath, who seems to espouse modern, responsible, sensible and pragmatic progressive values.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My point in the above post was that, regardless of the outcome of the election (which, as history has shown - not to mention the discredited reputation of polling recently- can be anything and can result in ANY of the three main/major parties winning with a minority or even a majority), the outcome of the debate a couple of days ago was what it is.

      Whatever happens on election day is anyone's guess, but this was specifically about the debate, and also supplemented with my own personal opinion as a voter.

      Delete