Archives

Categories

Was Tim Hudak Ontario’s version of Michael Ignatieff circa 2011?

I was thinking about that comparison as I digest a surprising Liberal majority in Ontario this AM (but the folks at Forum and Ekos with their last polls called it – so kudos to them. I think Nanos also had 1 poll out that pretty well mirrored the results).

Thinking back to 2011, Harper was (and still isn’t) not a universally loved leader, but Ignatieff was less popular then him (due both to attack ads and his personality in general, I’d argue). In Ontario, the OLP as a whole were not obviously loved by all due to some of their track record, but Hudak was disliked worse, it seems.

In 2011, it could be argued that Ignatieff did not make a good enough case to have voters get over their dislike of him to vote for him and the Liberals over Harper (contempt of Parliament was “the” reason the election was called). In 2014, Hudak tried to make the case by “cutting 100 000, but creating a million jobs”, but voters obviously didn’t buy that case either.

I would argue that in both 2011, and 2014, voters went with the status quo because they disliked the alternatives that were being presented to them.

At any rate, I congratulate Kathleen Wynne. She has a mandate, and I hope she plans on being a progressive Premier now that she has that mandate, as she ran to the left this whole campaign. (Personally, I hope to quickly see Ranked Ballot voting reform that she promised for not only Toronto but every municipality if they so choose to use it to be quickly re-introduced, and this time as a government bill, not a Private Member’s bill)

Share

3 comments to Was Tim Hudak Ontario’s version of Michael Ignatieff circa 2011?

  • This has got to be one of the most dimwitted blogs I’ve ever read.

    Hudak got the same percent of the vote that Tory got in 2007 (31%). Was Ignatieff another Tory?

    Under Iggy, the Liberal party collapsed, from Dion’s miserable 28% in 2008 to 19%. From official opposition to third party status. It was the party’s worst defeat in history.

    Did the PCs fall to third place? Was this the PCs’ worst defeat in history? Obviously not.

    Looks like brains aren’t required to be a member of the “progressive” Liberal party. Given Trudeau Jr. puts his foot in his mouth any time he strays off script, brains aren’t required to lead the party either.

  • monkey

    I tend to agree in many ways. Nik Nanos commented that whomever the ballot question is about usually loses. Hudak made it about himself rather than Wynne. Also most polls showed Wynne has a negative approval rating, but Hudak’s is even worse. I would also add the BC election had a sort of similar dynamic as people were even with the polls being off ready to throw the BC Liberals out, but disliked the option of the NDP returning even more.

    I think Wynne has a mandate to run a progressive government, but she needs to too realize if the deficit gets out of control it will just mean massive cuts later, so best to do some cuts and tax hikes, but make sure they don’t affect those who most need services. Otherwise wage freezes or even wage cuts without cutting jobs is one possibility. While controversial, I think a 2% HST hike which would be reduced once the budget is balanced would be worthy of consideration. Of all tax hikes this would have the least negative impact on growth and it would bring in a lot of revenue thus meaning fewer spending cuts would be needed. In addition in Education if you tied funding per pupil it would decline due to declining enrolment numbers (we have an aging population so more old people meaning more is needed for health care, but fewer younger people) without causing any harm.

  • mannt

    Some comments on polling:

    (1) The pollsters that nailed it either used random, IVR polling (EKOS, Forum, both reported multiple consistent polls of Liberal lead) or random telephone polling (Nanos, only one poll as far as I know). Random IVR or telephone polling, theoretically, can assess the mood of the population, at time of polling, if carried out competently (i.e. truly random sampling, adequate sample size, unbiased analysis, etc.).

    (2) The pollsters that failed to nail it because they were calling for a close election (Ipsos Reid, Abacus, Angus Reid)used a non random, pre selected, online, focus group methodology. As I have posted elsewhere: http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/06/08/who-decides-who-wins-a-debate/, there is nothing wrong with using focus groups, but it would be intellectually dishonest to pass them off, or to give them the same weightage, as the truly random polls. No amount of statistical weighting, or claiming that the members were subsequently “randomly selected from the panel” is going to make it into a truly random poll when the panel members had already been non randomly chosen.

    (3) the “likely” voters polls are where it gets hairy. Even EKOS likely voter call overestimated both Libs and Cons support but they did get the significant Libs lead over the Cons correct. Ipsos wears the dunce cap for their likely voters poll, since they had claimed that the Cons had led in EVERY major region of the province:http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6532 I don’t think it was possible to get any more wrong than Ipsos did: they should feel very embarrassed.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.