Maurizio Bevilacqua drops out and supports Rae
Today's big news is that Maurizio Bevilacqua has dropped out of the Liberal leadership race and thrown his support behind Rae. While I am not surprised he dropped out, I am totally stunned that he endorsed Bob Rae. Considering he is a blue Liberal and generally considered on the right of the party, it seems odd he would endorse a former NDP premier whose policies are generally quite different than the kind he has advocated. My guess is Rae promised him something in return if he is elected.
This is certainly a definite plus for Bob Rae as he can use this to show he is not an NDPer masqueranding as a liberal and that he has support in Ontario and from both the left and right side of the Liberal Party. Still with Bob Rae's support mostly coming from the elites and less so from the grassroots, I would say he is the fourth most likely to win behind Ignatieff, Dion, and Kennedy.
At this point I would say Hedy Fry, Martha Hall Findlay, and Carolyn Bennett really have no chance at winning, however in the case of the latter two, I think they should wait until after the DSM meetings so they can get a stronger public profile and then thrown their support behind whichever candidate is most willing to adopt their ideas and policies. Ken Dryden and Scott Brison have virtually no chance at becoming Liberal leader however with Brison in the lead in Atlantic Canada and Dryden in Manitoba, they can probably secure enough delegates to be kingmaker so I would encourage those two to stay on. Joe Volpe also has enough support to be kingmaker, but since he is a liability to the Liberal Party, so he should drop out as anyways.
In terms of their chances: Bob Rae certainly has done surprisingly well, but I still think his chances at winning are not great, but at least it is a possibility. Just the thought of an election where the choice is between an NDPer and Reformer is not something I particularly look forward to. Gerard Kennedy won't finish first on the first ballot, but has plenty of room for growth. For Stephane Dion, as long as he finishes in the top five on the first ballot, he can win since he is many people's second choice. Michael Ignatieff on the other hand needs to get above 40% on the first ballot or else it will be very difficult to swing enough delegates his way to win since he has the most support, but not much room for growth.
In terms of Rae being Liberal leader, while I am glad he is able to attract Blue Liberals, his record as premier still leaves me with deep concerns both about his electability in Ontario and whether I could support him or not. I certainly won't vote for Harper next election, but I would have a tough time at the moment supporting Rae unless he can convince me otherwise. Having good ideas and being smart will only go so far. One's past government record does matter. It is much like having an outstanding job interview, being a top student, and very smart, but having a bad reference letter from your most recent employer. In that scenario, I don't think a company would be too keen on hiring such a person. And since Rae's actual record is not great, I am very reluctant to support him. While some of the problems were beyond his control, the reality is Ontario's situation was far worse than most other provinces, which suggests to me while the recession didn't help, his policies weren't helpful either. Now, if he has learned from his mistakes, I am willing to give him a second look, but the question is, is the average non-political swing Ontario voter willing to give him a second chance. Only time well tell, but I have my doubts.
This is certainly a definite plus for Bob Rae as he can use this to show he is not an NDPer masqueranding as a liberal and that he has support in Ontario and from both the left and right side of the Liberal Party. Still with Bob Rae's support mostly coming from the elites and less so from the grassroots, I would say he is the fourth most likely to win behind Ignatieff, Dion, and Kennedy.
At this point I would say Hedy Fry, Martha Hall Findlay, and Carolyn Bennett really have no chance at winning, however in the case of the latter two, I think they should wait until after the DSM meetings so they can get a stronger public profile and then thrown their support behind whichever candidate is most willing to adopt their ideas and policies. Ken Dryden and Scott Brison have virtually no chance at becoming Liberal leader however with Brison in the lead in Atlantic Canada and Dryden in Manitoba, they can probably secure enough delegates to be kingmaker so I would encourage those two to stay on. Joe Volpe also has enough support to be kingmaker, but since he is a liability to the Liberal Party, so he should drop out as anyways.
In terms of their chances: Bob Rae certainly has done surprisingly well, but I still think his chances at winning are not great, but at least it is a possibility. Just the thought of an election where the choice is between an NDPer and Reformer is not something I particularly look forward to. Gerard Kennedy won't finish first on the first ballot, but has plenty of room for growth. For Stephane Dion, as long as he finishes in the top five on the first ballot, he can win since he is many people's second choice. Michael Ignatieff on the other hand needs to get above 40% on the first ballot or else it will be very difficult to swing enough delegates his way to win since he has the most support, but not much room for growth.
In terms of Rae being Liberal leader, while I am glad he is able to attract Blue Liberals, his record as premier still leaves me with deep concerns both about his electability in Ontario and whether I could support him or not. I certainly won't vote for Harper next election, but I would have a tough time at the moment supporting Rae unless he can convince me otherwise. Having good ideas and being smart will only go so far. One's past government record does matter. It is much like having an outstanding job interview, being a top student, and very smart, but having a bad reference letter from your most recent employer. In that scenario, I don't think a company would be too keen on hiring such a person. And since Rae's actual record is not great, I am very reluctant to support him. While some of the problems were beyond his control, the reality is Ontario's situation was far worse than most other provinces, which suggests to me while the recession didn't help, his policies weren't helpful either. Now, if he has learned from his mistakes, I am willing to give him a second look, but the question is, is the average non-political swing Ontario voter willing to give him a second chance. Only time well tell, but I have my doubts.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 10:27 PM
29 Comments:
One's past government record does matter, definitely. By the way, what did you not like about his time in government?
"While some of the problems were beyond his control, the reality is Ontario's situation was far worse than most other provinces, which suggests to me while the recession didn't help, his policies weren't helpful either."
That's absolutely false. Towards the end of Bob Rae's term, Ontario led the way in growth among the provinces and had one of the strongest economies in the G7. This suggests that his policies were indeed helpful. You can read all about it here:
http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1155505812283&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1129025140139
I'd say the chances of "the average non-political swing Ontario voter" giving Bob Rae a second chance would be much greater if people like you stopped perpetuating the myth that he was an ineffective Premier.
One's past government record does matter, definitely. By the way, what did you not like about his time in government?
One's past government record does matter and I don't believe Bob Rae did an outstanding job. He tried to spend out of a recession, which didn't work. But more importantly do we really want to take a chance of losing seats in Ontario, because I sure don't.
That's absolutely false. Towards the end of Bob Rae's term, Ontario led the way in growth among the provinces and had one of the strongest economies in the G7. This suggests that his policies were indeed helpful. You can read all about it here:
I've read it and while there was some recovery towards the end, the middle of his term so economic conditions far worse than other provinces. At one point one in eight Ontarioans were on welfare, which is not a policy I think one should be proud of.
I'd say the chances of "the average non-political swing Ontario voter" giving Bob Rae a second chance would be much greater if people like you stopped perpetuating the myth that he was an ineffective Premier.
Actually the Ontarioans including some who voted Liberal last election that I talked to some a lot less forgiving than me. In addition I have seen the NDP in action here in BC, so I am skeptical about letting on of their past leaders lead the party. I would rather we choose someone like Gerard Kennedy or Stephane Dion who in both cases have a very good government record and could do just as many if not more good things than Rae ever could.
I've lived under the NDP in BC, I've seen the NDP in Ontario. They're not comparable. Rae didn't fit in with his party - many of his NDP MPs are blamed for sabotaging him.
Sorry, but I don't think you're willing to take a realistic look at the man.
I'm not a specific Rae-supporter. I just don't think you're being honest here.
And Rae's support isn't fucked in Ontario - give me a break. Toronto will vote him no matter what so long as he's Liberal, and so will other places.
Fact is, there are diehard conservatives who were bowled over shocked by his performance and like him as a moderate - the only NDPer they'll say that about. I know some of them personally.
You're repeating myth, not fact.
I've lived under the NDP in BC, I've seen the NDP in Ontario. They're not comparable. Rae didn't fit in with his party - many of his NDP MPs are blamed for sabotaging him.
I agree he wasn't as bad as Glen Clark, but I would still take several of the other Liberal leadership contenders asides from Hedy fry and Joe Volpe over him.
Sorry, but I don't think you're willing to take a realistic look at the man.
I'm not a specific Rae-supporter. I just don't think you're being honest here.
Its not so much I am not willing to take a look at him is from everyone I've talked to who lived in Ontario when he was in power including many Liberals, I have heard nothing but bad things. I am not willing to risk giving Harper a majority. Choosing Dion, Igantieff, or Kennedy will prevent this and they all stand a good chance at winning.
And Rae's support isn't fucked in Ontario - give me a break. Toronto will vote him no matter what so long as he's Liberal, and so will other places.
Off course the 416 will go Liberal no matter what, but we already have almost every seat there so that won't do us any good. I suspect he would also do well in Northern Ontario. Where I am worried about is the 905 belt. We need to be focusing on winning rural Ontario back, not worrying about losing seats in the 905 belt. I believe Jason Cherniak said he would put the York region ridings in jeopardy and considering Cherniak sits on the Richmond Hill EDA, he probably is right. Lets remember Mike Harris' majority in 1995 and sweep of the 905 belt was not some accident. This was due to mass dissatisfaction with Bob Rae. If Ontario liked him so much, he wouldn't have been clobbered in the 1995 election and they wouldn't have elected a staunch libertarian premier who at least economically more conservative than any premier in recent memory including Ralph Klein. The 905 belt again went massively for Mike Harris in 1999 while in 2003 Dalton McGuinty only narrowly took most of the 905 belt ridings, so these ridings appear to be centre-right not centre-left. Some people who voted for Mike Harris in the 90s voted for Paul Martin in the last two elections, but I can assure you these people won't go for Bob Rae. I am trying to suggest Mike Harris was a great premier, I am simply pointing out that we need to at least get a small chunk of the soft Harris votes to win Ontario along with some of the soft NDP votes.
Fact is, there are diehard conservatives who were bowled over shocked by his performance and like him as a moderate - the only NDPer they'll say that about. I know some of them personally.
You're repeating myth, not fact.
A lot of conservatives might like the work he has done since being premier, but I have yet to meet a conservative who thought he was a good premier. And no I am not repeating a myth, in fact if Rae could win, I would be a lot more comfortable with him being leader. I know what happened in the 1995 provincial election and people don't get clobbered in an election for no reason.
I have yet to meet a conservative who thought he was a good premier
Well, I guess you're the expert here, Miles.
On the other hand, maybe you should meet my Communist-hating, John Deere driving, two-rifles-and-one-shotgun, 1000 acres-farming dad. And some of his conservative pick-up truck driving farmer friends.
You're full of shit. I'm generally a Dion guy, but I can tell what's fair and what's not about other candidates, and sadly, all you know is myth.
Oh, and you dodged my point entirely. I didn't say he was BETTER than Glen Clark - I said that Rae didn't fit in with his party, and many of his MPs are blamed for sabotaging him.
That's why so many Conservatives were willing to cut him some slack on judging him -- the Glen Clark and Howard Hamptons in Rae's government were too ideological and unable to evolve.
People saw that Rae was hampered by an ideological party too stiff to bend, and many saw that Rae was NOT one of those people - he's flexible and adaptable.
But please, keep on with your horseshit nonsense - all you're doing to is showing how little you really know.
(I myself know very little, but I don't run around pretending to know heaps about everything)
Oh, and you dodged my point entirely. I didn't say he was BETTER than Glen Clark - I said that Rae didn't fit in with his party, and many of his MPs are blamed for sabotaging him.
That may have been the case, but I am not sure how much the average Ontarioan sees this. Lets remember people don't tend to be very forgiving of mistakes in politics and even if the more left MPs tried to sabotage him, since he is the leader the buck stops at the top. Think all you want I am propagating myths, but I know many others, liberal, conservative, and NDP who think Rae is a liability. If you want to go ahead a lose the next election or take a big gamble fine, but I don't want to see Harper get a majority and wreck this country, which with Dion, Kennedy, or Ignatieff they can at the very least hold Harper to a minority and preferably defeat him. With Rae there is a chance he could win since elections are unpredictable, but there is also chance Harper could a get a majority, a chance I don't want to take.
I also should note some bloggers such as Jason Cherniak probably know the area better than either of us and if he is saying Bob Rae could put the York region ridings in jeopardy, he probably is right.
Well Miles, I appreciate how you conduct yourself while under a little heat and microscope here. You show a lot of class -- even tho I disagree with you to the hilt on this topic.
Please don't use Jason Cherniak as evidence of something; his track record is unbearable but i give him points for stubbornly sticking to his opinion right until everyone else has found them to be false.
On my executive, i am surrounded by mostly goodhearted Dion backers. But there is the occasional rabid person who gives the impression that its there candidate or nothing. I like Stephane and personally don't agree with the idea that some of his rivals (more likely their minions) who say he can't deliver in his own home province (shades of 'Bob', don't you think?)... But he does have baggage. Sure, not Ignatieff 'Iraqian' baggage, but when you're the environment minister and our record on the environment is in the toilet, that's going to hurt.
Rae has accomplished a lot during the years since he left office. For those who experienced the mid-90s in Ontario, they may have a negative opinion of the man. But he remains one of the top candidates who has consistently stepped up and tackled questions and issues TODAY that hit at Harpor. He has the ability to take Harpor on at any level and any topic.
There is no sure thing anymore -- after Martin we should all have learned that. I'd say continue providing good reasons and arguments for your candidate, but because this is a preferential system, keep your ears and eyes open about Bob. You might be surprised.
Look forward to seeing you on the floor!
Actually, Burl Ives is right on your conduct - I came back to say, "I shouldn't have used swearing in my post".
But he also beat me to the punch with the point about Dion and Quebec vs. Rae and Ontario. I think you're being selective in which myths you're listening to.
If you want to go ahead a lose the next election or take a big gamble fine,
I couldn't have been more clear, but oh well - here goes yet again:
I'm generally a Dion man.
However, I'm ultra-turned off by Liberals such as yourself who want the most electable candidate. Didn't work out for the Democrats and Kerry, did it? Dean was the man all along, and they got scared off.
We should be examining leadership candidates based on their ideas about federalism, unity, international relations, fighting terrorism, liberalism, and democratic reform, and not how "electable" they are. I'm not a big believer in "electability" - I just like the best (wo)man for the job.
Apparently, I need to take all that back and defer to a far better wordsmith than I - Richard McAdam. While he's a Conservative who supports George Bush II and I am not, I still agree with him -- there is no passion in the leadership for ideas about the future, there is only harping on why Harper didn't attend the AIDS conference.
The leadership isn't about beating Harper - it's about the FUTURE of the LIBERAL PARTY. Liberals are bending over backwards to make sure, though, that the race becomes all about Harper.
On my executive, i am surrounded by mostly goodhearted Dion backers. But there is the occasional rabid person who gives the impression that its there candidate or nothing.
I am not saying it is an all or nothing. I am simply pointing out, I am still a skeptic of Bob Rae. I so far haven't seen much to dislike about him, but that is only if I ignore his record as premier in Ontario and since one's past experience is very important to me, this makes me a skeptic. In addition I don't think he is the most electable, although he would probably do better than Joe Volpe would even in his home province of Ontario
I like Stephane and personally don't agree with the idea that some of his rivals (more likely their minions) who say he can't deliver in his own home province (shades of 'Bob', don't you think?)... But he does have baggage.
The difference here is the Liberals have reached their absolute minimum in terms of support in Quebec, so we cannot go any lower. This is not the case in Ontario. Besides there are far more close ridings in Ontario we could potentially pick up than there are in Quebec.
But he remains one of the top candidates who has consistently stepped up and tackled questions and issues TODAY that hit at Harpor. He has the ability to take Harpor on at any level and any topic.
He is definitely a good opposition leader, however I can just see the negative attack ads the Tories will roll out and I am not sure if he will have enough time to inoculate himself from them.
There is no sure thing anymore -- after Martin we should all have learned that. I'd say continue providing good reasons and arguments for your candidate, but because this is a preferential system, keep your ears and eyes open about Bob. You might be surprised.
Couldn't agree more. I never thought Harper would become PM and back in 2003 I thought Martin would break Mulroney's 211 seat record. However, I should note my predictions just before the election have usually been very close to the actual results. In the last election I got 93% of the ridings correct.
However, I'm ultra-turned off by Liberals such as yourself who want the most electable candidate. Didn't work out for the Democrats and Kerry, did it? Dean was the man all along, and they got scared off.
Actually Dean would have done even worse. He is a New Englander like Kerry and too liberal for a conservative country like the US. They needed a southerner like John Edwards or Dick Gephardt. Besides while ideas are important, they have no chance of ever seeing the light of day if the person is unelectable. I also don't want to risk having Harper get a majority.
Actually Dean would have done even worse. He is a New Englander like Kerry and too liberal for a conservative country like the US. They needed a southerner like John Edwards or Dick Gephardt. Besides while ideas are important, they have no chance of ever seeing the light of day if the person is unelectable. I also don't want to risk having Harper get a majority.
Uh, actually, you're clueless. Dean was from New England and therefore "unelectable"? Yeah, right - well, now I see the level you're on, that pretty much explains everything.
You're telling me the most important criteria in those primaries was being a Southerner? Okay, well, that sums it all up. Kerry wasn't sincere - ever. Dean was sincere. He was more "electable". And if you place "electability" ahead of ideas, you're fucked in the head - please, by all means, do quote me on that - forever and ever and ever.
Dean was mainly unelectable because he was too liberal and as someone who has been to several red states even someone like Stephen Harper would be slightly left of centre, while I would be considered a commie. Outside of the major coastal cities, the US by and large is quite right wing. The Democrats need someone on the centre-right to win. And having known some people who have lived in the South, Southerners generally distrust Northeasterners. They see them as godless and immoral. Thankfully we in Canada are more liberal where someone with Dean's views are electable. And never mind all the right wing propaganda being spewed by Faux News and radio talk show hosts has sadly made the word "liberal" like four letter word in much of the US. The days of JFKs liberalism and FDRs New Deal type policies are long gone. So while who knows what would have happened if Dean won, I think it was an uphill battle for whoever the Dems chose.
As a Tory, I usually don't mind watching Liberals argue among themselves like this, but people are beginning to step over the line here.
For all the zany things Miles says from time to time, what he's saying in this case is pretty much conventional wisdom.
The facts are undeniable, Rae's record in Ontario was abysmal. As an example, here's just one statistic to chew on:
In his brief half decade in office, he racked up a cumulative deficit of roughly $60 billion, which in the words of economist Tom Courchene, is "arguably a record for a sub-national government, anywhere, anytime"
This is the record of the man who wants to lead a party that credits itself slaying with the federal deficit?
We know the usual excuses:
"He governed during a recession."
So did Mulroney. Do these people ever cut him the same slack?
"Ottawa cut transfers to the provinces."
Right, and who initiated the biggest cuts to federal-provincial transfers in Canadian history? Some finance minister by the name of Paul Martin, under some Prime Minister by the name of Jean Chretien.
The Liberals managed to stall Harper's rise to the prime-ministership based on past quotes, most of which were taken out of context. In contrast, Rae has an actual record to target. And if you think Miles is being to hard on the guy, just wait until Conservative electoral war machine is through with him.
Yes, most Liberals are far too obsessed with winning at any cost. But I don't think you can fault guys like Miles for coming to the conclusion that he's unelectable.
Just as an example of what I'm talking about, this is what the electoral map of the 416 looked like after the '95 Ontario election. Not to say that I see Harper cracking the 416, I'm just giving you a visual demonstration of just how unpopular Rae became, and how much the Libs could lose if he's chosen.
And as for the bit about Howard Dean et al., what do all of the last three Democrats to be elected president (LBJ, Carter and Clinton) have in common?
They're all southerners from the moderate wing of the party.
No matter which way you slice it, for a Democrat to win, he or she has to be able to win in the south. That's not to say that being from New England makes one completely unelectable, but it is an uphill battle.
And Dean certainly is unelectable. McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, everytime the Dems have nominated a solid liberal in the last 30 years, they've lost.
I understand that you don't like what Miles is saying, but it doesn't change the fact that it's right.
I couldn't agree more with you Brandon. I don't think Harper will crack into the 416 since for whatever reason the 90s seemed to be the turning point against the Tories in the 416. Up until 2003 provincially and 1993 federally, the PCs always won seats in Toronto proper. Their best chance in the 416 is interestingly enough Michael Ignatieff's riding, but I cannot see him losing his seat. If anything I wouldn't be surprised if the Liberals re-take Parkdale-High Park since either Rae or Kennedy will run in that riding (it was Kennedy's provincially) and Rae was well liked in that particular riding, despite being disliked elsewhere. And Brandon is right, the Tory attacks on Rae will be far more vicious than anything coming from me. If you consider how effective the Liberal attack ads against Harper were in 2004, it could easily work the other way. On the other hand Dion and Kennedy are pretty difficult to attack and if the Conservatives attack them too hard, they will look desperate much like the Liberals did in 2006 and risk a backlash.
As for Howard Dean being unelectable, the simple fact is the United States is a conservative nation at least relative to Canada and anyone to the left of what Brian Mulroney was is pretty much unelectable there. And one should note over the last 40 years, half of it has had a Southern president. In fact JFK was the last non-Southerner Democrat to become president. And lets remember the right wing has had a very strong political base and through its think tanks, radio talk shows, Faux News, and vicious attacks against anyone who isn't a staunch conservative have successfully pulled the country considerably to the right.
Faux News
Heh.
I don't agree but I have to admit that's clever.
I've seen it elsewhere. And yes I do find them to be more about presenting a biased viewpoint than facts while claiming it to be fact. Nothing wrong with presenting a biased viewpoint, but at least they should admit that is what it is. Besides I cannot stand Bill O'Reilly, the guy is a complete idiot.
Besides I cannot stand Bill O'Reilly, the guy is a complete idiot.
And a liar.
from Fox News Channel Controversies
"A Project on Excellence in Journalism study showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent."
Interesting...
And a liar
Or stupid enough to actually believe the crap he spews out. You know there are people who actually buy into that garbage.
"A Project on Excellence in Journalism study showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent."
Interesting...
I am surprised it is not higher. It is also interesting to note those who primarily watched Fox News generally voted for Bush, while those who watched other American networks were more likely to vote Kerry. Also over 2/3 of those who watched Fox News believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.
Yeh, i can see the attack ads, too. But once they start bringing up 11-year-old quotes and policy decisions of a rookie premier during a recession, that would open the door to bring up 3-8 year old quotes and 'letters to the editor' by Harpor that the msm refused to touch last election, to avoid upsetting their bosses' tory slanting.
There's an answer for everything miles. Personally, I think we've hit the minimum in Ontario, and when you put Liberal led Rae against harpor, I think the comparisons of Harris will be quite effective (tho Harpor's own acts are damning enuf). In quebec its a different story. As you mentioned, there is only so much room for growth with the bloc and any mediocre support for the tories. Dion could be a bust there, or he could turn the ignition switch on a sudden surge -- you know how impulsive quebec voters are. But Rae has a very strong reputation in Quebec, and it could be argued he is held in higher esteem there than Dion. I could pull quotes and articles out of my butt to prove all these, as could you to refute them, but the difference between you and i seems to be that i am open to considering the positives of both these good men. Each candidate will be subject to negative advertisement.
I actually think Rae would do better in Quebec than Dion, but outside of Montreal we got clobbered so badly I think it will take more than one election to recover. I think we can get up to 25 seats in Quebec, but pretty much all from Montreal and maybe a few suburbs that have a large Anglophone or Allophone community.
As for comparisons to Mike Harris, those are effective, but if it is Rae doing it I am not sure how effective since Mike Harris did win two majorities while Rae got decimated after one. I think the Mike Harris comparisons though are more effective at scaring NDP voters away than they are at attracting Tory voters since most Tory supporters generally agree with the common sense revolution. In Ontario I don't think we've hit our minimum by any stretch of the imagination. From a historical perspective, 54 seats is about average for us. We did worse in 1979, 1984, and 1988, as well as the 1999 provincial election so yes we can do worse. I cannot see us losing the 416, but the 905 belt could under the right conditions go Tory, so I think we must make sure that doesn't happen.
You are certainly right though on Harper's past quotes. The only concern I have here is this will only be effective at preventing Harper from getting a majority, whereas I want to see him defeated. Since he hasn't done any of those scary things yet, I think most assume as long as he doesn't get a majority they have nothing to worry about. That being said he has done enough stupid things I think we can defeat him on his record.
Burl,
1) As Miles outlined, 40 seats is certainly not the bottom for the Liberals in Ontario. While it may be hard to imagine Tory gains in the 416 and northern Ontario, they're certainly possible (and with Rae, almost certain) in the 905.
2) The past quote game didn't work last time and it certainly won't work next time. Every time the Liberals do that, all Harper has to point to his record, which however brief it may be, is and almost certainly will be a helluva lot better than Rae's.
As Miles alluded to, the only benefit the Liberals might get from that strategy (and that's a big "if") is it might hold back Tory growth somewhat. But it's certainly not going to win you the keys to 24 Sussex.
Sorry, make that 54 seats instead of 40.
I generally agree with Brandon here once again. Rural Ontario definitely has a right leaning tendencies so the Liberals won't regain that by moving to the left. The 905 belt is a bit of wildcard, but it did go massively for Mike Harris so that is probably a good sign Bob Rae would not be too well received there. Now the growth out of the 416 has definitely made the area less conservative than 10 years ago. I would say 40 seats is probably the the bottom for the Liberals while 80 seats is probably the top end in Ontario.
I agree Rae might do very well in Quebec, but as Burlivespipe points out, Quebec is a real wildcard and tough to predict. In the event that Quebec does work out, it would be good to have a fall back in Ontario.
Miles, I really doubt that the Libs are going to make gains in rural and small-town Ontario. You're forgetting something called the MERGER of the Canadian Alliance and PC's. Especially in Eastern Ontario (ie. Renfrew or Leeds and Grenville counties) the Conservatives are extremely safe.
The fact that the CPC is more socially conservative than the old PC's actually HELPS them in this region.
The Libs can make gains in smaller cities that narrowly went Tory (i.e. St. Catharines, Niagara Falls), perhaps in Northern Ontario, perhaps Parry Sound (given that Tony Clement is a carpetbagger who barely won), and maybe win up to 2 of the Hamilton seats won by the NDP (Hamilton is traditionally a Liberal stronghold).
In 416, Etobicoke-Lakeshore should stay Liberal as long as Iggy is the MP, but I have the feeling that if he's not leader he'll call it quits. 2 Etobicoke ridings and Don Valley West (if Godfrey retires) I think are winnable for the Conservatives if they run decent candidates.
Also I think you're dead wrong about Kennedy. His leadership race to date has been an absolute flop, and his star is sinking like a stone...at least for now. I think he'd have trouble beating Peggy Nash in Parkdale-High Park. If Rae is leader, I think he'll pick a super-safe riding like York South (his old turf) or perhaps Bill Graham's riding.
I don't think Rae will be that much of a liability. He's getting a lot of support even from Bay Street circles and I think he is personally very respected. Those who are obsessed with the "Bob Rae ruined Ontario" line aren't going to be voting Liberal anyway and most centrist Liberals I think would take Rae over Harper.
Finally, anyone who wasn't asleep at the switch knew that Ontario was headed for a big recession in 1990. David Peterson refused to do anything about the deficit.
I'd also like to add that I think Rae would be far more palatable in Quebec than Iggy. The race is Iggy's to lose and he's doing a pretty good job at it. It's certainly not the cakewalk people were expecting.
In the end, Dion may be the kingmaker of this race. He'll probably place third.
Matt - I generally agree most of rural Ontario is unwinneable for the Tories. I would say with the exception of Niagara Falls, Essex, and maybe Cambridge, all the ridings they won in 2004 are out of reach for the Liberals. However, most of the ridings the Tories picked up in 2006 were by much narrower margins so with the exception of Lambton-Kent-Middlesex and Chatham-Kent-Essex, I think all the other ones are winneable, although probably difficult. Local incumbents tend to carry a lot more weight in rural ridings than urban so the longer this session lasts the tougher it will be to take those ridings.
As for Bob Rae, I think a lot of people understand the recession thing, but there are many who feel he made it worse. My main concern much like Cherniak is that the 905 belt will be put in jeopardy. Ignatieff might scare some left leaning Liberals over to the NDP, but I think Rae would scare just as many if not more Blue Liberals over to the Tories. Also a lot depends on how Harper does. If he continues to screw up, we will probably win no matter who we choose, the only question is by how much.
Hi !.
You re, I guess , perhaps very interested to know how one can collect a huge starting capital .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may start to get income with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you thought of all the time
The firm incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
Its head office is in Panama with offices around the world.
Do you want to become a happy investor?
That`s your chance That`s what you really need!
I`m happy and lucky, I began to take up real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to select a proper companion utilizes your funds in a right way - that`s it!.
I take now up to 2G every day, and my first investment was 500 dollars only!
It`s easy to start , just click this link http://equsojom.digitalzones.com/rosiwur.html
and go! Let`s take our chance together to become rich
Post a Comment
<< Home