Ontario Election 2022

[adma]

The NDP and Liberals have once again lept on a political landmine, they've come out against Doug Ford's lifting of the mask mandate and vaccine passport scheme which will almost certainly drive all anti-covid restriction voters back into doug ford's camp, despite him having implemented some of the strictest restrictions of any judristction.

How many of those kinds of, shall we say, electorally militant anti-restriction voters are there?  If anything'll drive them back into Doug Ford's camp, it's Randy Hillier (the most "charismatic" of the anti-restriction dissidents) opting to retire rather than to lead a provincial version of PPC.

It's not about them, it's about covid-fatigued middle ground voters who are starting to be skeptical of the restrictions. By driving them all back to the PC camp, the liberals and NDP make it that much harder to get rid of ford.

Critical word here: driving them all *back*--that is, presuming they were in that camp in the 2018 first place.  But you know something:  at this point, said restrictions are just one of an archipelago of issues where an OLP/ONDP stance (or more properly, Doug Ford's exploitation of said stances to his benefit) can drive those kinds of voters back.  As has been mentioned, "woke" issues.  Or opposition to Hwy 413 and the Bradford bypass.  That is, you'll find plenty of overlap among such issues when it comes to your kind of "middle ground voter" pigeonhole--and often founded upon a parallel restriction skepticism: more likely than not, they'd be the same sorts who'd roll their eyes at what they see as the overwrought environmental assessments that halt or compromise "necessary tranportation projects", or at the NIMBYS all up in arms over the province taking a wrecking ball to the Dominion Foundry which is, like, y'know, just a bunch of industrial sheds, it's not like it's the Parthenon or anything, etc. 

Once that's considered, Covid's just a pinprick in the broader scheme of things when it comes to said voters--the question remains of how "galvanizable" that base is, relative to the bigger picture..

[adma]

I think COVID restrictions only a major issue if we see another spike.  If cases continue to fall, it will be largely a non-issue as people have short term memories so in that case people will have largely forgotten ones in past and won't be a huge push for more.  However if things spike, then it could get interesting.  I also think on COVID fatigue its probably more lockdowns or closures of certain businesses and restrictions on activities people oppose as opposed to masks and especially vaccine passports.  Some accept that masks and vaccine passports are way to keep things open.  If OLP and NDP were smart, they would emphasize this and make clear they are against further lockdowns and they favour these so things can stay open.

Still COVID is a tricky one and no one knows what the situation will look like in June either.

As has been mentioned before in this thread, Lib/NDP would be more "pro-sensible" than "pro-lockdown"--*nobody* desires lockdowns, except as a necessary evil.  But let's also not forget that even if one is generically "Covid-fatigued", it doesn't mean one'd side with the recent trucker protests; indeed, one might argue that they actually insulted, degraded, and debased the anti-restriction cause.  That is, if Lib/NDP wanted to be *really* cheap about it, they'd accuse Krista Ford Haynes of forcing her father's hand.

Which is why, ultimately, the vaunted "middle ground voter" as described here is just a metaphor for the "silent majority" euphemism.  People who are generically fed up with Big Government overreach, with red tape, with "elites" calling the shots.  That's a beat Doug Ford knows, it's always been a cornerstone of his method of politicking.  And as the most extreme Covid restrictions fade into the rear view, he can fold that kind of fatigue into his bigger schtick on behalf of the "little guy".  We needed "Big Government" for the duration; but now it's finished, let's move on...

ETA: and w/that in mind, it's not so much that the Libs or NDP actually *would* be pro-lockdown; however, Ford-style politicking would probably seek to *frame them* as pro-lockdown extremists.  The promise of further lockdowns as just more of that readily-gaslightable "far-left radicalism" which Ontarians sought to "move on from" in '18...

[adma]

As has been mentioned before in this thread, Lib/NDP would be more "pro-sensible" than "pro-lockdown"--*nobody* desires lockdowns, except as a necessary evil.  But let's also not forget that even if one is generically "Covid-fatigued", it doesn't mean one'd side with the recent trucker protests; indeed, one might argue that they actually insulted, degraded, and debased the anti-restriction cause.  That is, if Lib/NDP wanted to be *really* cheap about it, they'd accuse Krista Ford Haynes of forcing her father's hand.

Which is why, ultimately, the vaunted "middle ground voter" as described here is just a metaphor for the "silent majority" euphemism.  People who are generically fed up with Big Government overreach, with red tape, with "elites" calling the shots.  That's a beat Doug Ford knows, it's always been a cornerstone of his method of politicking.  And as the most extreme Covid restrictions fade into the rear view, he can fold that kind of fatigue into his bigger schtick on behalf of the "little guy".  We needed "Big Government" for the duration; but now it's finished, let's move on...

ETA: and w/that in mind, it's not so much that the Libs or NDP actually *would* be pro-lockdown; however, Ford-style politicking would probably seek to *frame them* as pro-lockdown extremists.  The promise of further lockdowns as just more of that readily-gaslightable "far-left radicalism" which Ontarians sought to "move on from" in '18...

How are they pro-sensible, both Howarth and Del Duca are tweeting about masks that should be kept around for 2 more weeks, what is going to be different in 2 more weeks ?. There are jurisdictions that have relaxed mask restrictions what difference would 2 weeks make. The issue is that a proportion of their support base wants covid restriction to be indefinite. They want maks wearing to become part of the new normal seeing as no different than say public nudity rules mandating you have to wear pants, and don't seem to think that being forces to disclose medical information everytime you want to enter an indoor establishment is a big deal. These people aren't a majority anymore than the hardcore convoy supports were a majority but they are loud and politically active.

Howarth and Del-Duca are not being pro-sensible covid measures, rather they are pandering to a group of people who are never going to feel safe from covid but in an ineffective way, and people can sense that. There's nothing sensible about what they are proposing.

Uh, it's 2 more weeks.  It's not 2 more months, or 2 more years.  So re "what difference would it make", if I may be glass-half-empty/half-full about it, to those outside of the antimask/anti-restriction echo chamber, that kind and that scale of bought time is scarcely any kind of political straw breaking the camel's back.  In a way, the fact that it's only that "what difference would it make" apron of time demonstrates that Horwath & Del Duca are being *restrained* here--not to mention mindful of who might be pulling the strings on Ford's decision-making (his own daughter or daughters not excluded).  It's only the aforementioned echo chamber that's voicing things in binding terms of "next thing you know, it'll be...".  In reality, most voters (including those who might wind up opting for the PC-incumbent status quo) are kind of going-along-with-the-flow and insufficiently incensed, even if they might passively/generically feel that restrictions suck and a little loosening-up wouldn't hurt at this point.  Sure, the echo chamber might refer to them as "sheeple" because they're insufficiently *militant* about their dislike of restrictions; but, tough t!tty--maybe their non-militancy is an implicit critique of those prone to using terms like "sheeple", if you get my drift.  (Plus, that going-along-with-the-flow contingent is probably aware that the most recent extreme measures were specifically due to the Omicron variant eruption and authorities trying to get a handle on *that*--otherwise, practically to the end of '21, we *were* on the apparent way to so-called freedom.)

So much as pandemics become endemics, I suspect that this'll all be absorbed into a broader pre-existing archipelago of "these people aren't a majority...but they are loud and politically active" ammunition that the FordCons can use against the opposition.  Again, in the same category as environmental activists, "hysterical preservationists", and other such so-called "agents of obstruction" standing in the way of the 413, the Bradford Bypass, the Ontario Line and Ontario Place "renewal", etc.

Also, watch it with the "people can sense that".  I've seen "people" used in that standalone way (i.e. unqualified by "some", "many", "a lot of", etc) as a deceptively universalizing weasel word--sort of a passive-aggressive setting up of a duality vs "elites" or "radicals" or "activists".

[adma]

Adma, if you're referring to a party's COVID position as "pro-sensible" complaining about the Ford Tories using politically motivated labels for their opponents' positions is a bit much.

"Pro-sensible" means "let's not get hasty, bub".  Which is why I'm emphasizing that said opponents' positions are actually *restrained*, all things considered.  It's only that the Twitter echo chamber wants to aggressively play the "next thing you know, it'll be..." card to the max.

The general mean of Ontarians might not like lockdowns; but they don't dislike them to the extent that they can't see the more militant anti-lockdowners (i.e. those who get Youtubed getting into tussles at restaurants and retail outlets, or those who march to Queen's Park each and every Saturday) as the self-owning hee-haw hee-haws they are.

[adma]

The extra 2 week, as I understand it, is to ensure all the March Break related travel doesn't have an impact on kids in school.  Students/staff have never returned after a prolonged break without going online.  March Break (x2), Winter Break (x2), it's always been straight to online learning.  Now kids finally can return to school after a break, and let's just be cautious and keep the masks for 2 weeks.  That's what sensible people are saying, and why 2 more weeks is being suggested.

Maks will do literally nothing to change any travel related risks(which are essentially new underected variants) given that it's not like Ontario is some sort of zero-covid bubble. Masks aren't bulletproof and unless you're going for a zero-covid strategy won't make a difference.

Consider this:  masks are just about the most benign "Covid inconvenience" there is.  They're just something you wear, they're not on the scale of enforced lockdowns or capacity restrictions.  The worst they do (besides fogging up glasses when worn improperly) is bruise a few egos who feel misplaced-virility humiliation at having to wear "face diapers".  If one were to enter a post-Covid world in a slow-rollout way, keeping masks on for just a bit longer is practically nothing.  So if the *actual* middle-ground voter isn't politically worked up over the issue, that's why.

In the end, this is an election thread, not one about Covid and masking.  And at least I sought to frame the "Covid question" (and the future trajectory thereof) in broader and more election-centric terms.

[adma]

Consider this:  masks are just about the most benign "Covid inconvenience" there is.  They're just something you wear, they're not on the scale of enforced lockdowns or capacity restrictions.  The worst they do (besides fogging up glasses when worn improperly) is bruise a few egos who feel misplaced-virility humiliation at having to wear "face diapers".  If one were to enter a post-Covid world in a slow-rollout way, keeping masks on for just a bit longer is practically nothing.  So if the *actual* middle-ground voter isn't politically worked up over the issue, that's why.

In the end, this is an election thread, not one about Covid and masking.  And at least I sought to frame the "Covid question" (and the future trajectory thereof) in broader and more election-centric terms.

They're annoying to wear and are a very visible sign of the pandemic, given how hostile parts of the liberal party and NDP are to the idea that it shouldn't be criminal not to wear one it signals they might actually be in favour of far more stringent restrictions.

"Annoying to wear" for an additional 2 weeks is nothing compared to lost business due to an additional 2 weeks of lockdowns.  That is, the benignness of masks makes them a comparative nothingburger of an issue.  And of course the Libs/NDP would be in favour of far more stringent restrictions...*if* something that out-Omicrons Omicron came down the pipeline.  But consider, too, that in some ways, vax passports aside, the Omicron-triggered restrictions were *less* hyperactively universal and all-consuming than those which kicked in in the spring/summer 2020 days of the pandemic, when all sorts of stores and restaurants were cold-closing to all but home delivery and everyone was hunkering down and not doing anything but collecting CERB because everyone was still getting a feel on where this pandemic was going, how to handle it, etc.  By early '22, we had more of a handle on things; thus the Omicron world somehow didn't feel *quite* as ghost-towny as the early-to-mid-2020 Covid world.  And that would have been the case no matter which party was in charge.

And again, given the nature of the FordCons, this is where grousing over "more stringent restrictions" real and promised and down the pipeline might as well become more of an "endemic" than "pandemic" thing.  Annoyance over masking and social distancing being folded into, say, annoyance over not being able to do what one wants w/one's property because the nervous-nellie locals declared the neighbourhood to be a Heritage Conservation District.  *That* sort of thing.

Like at what point should we be able to move on the post-covid world, Doug Ford is the only one offering a clear answer. Neither the NDP or Liberals can win if they can't offer such an answer.

Doug Ford's method of governmental operation is that of cutting off oxygen:  "only I can offer a clear answer, because I'm in charge and you're not, so there, nyaaah".

[adma]

If Covid cases continue to fall and/or remain low then by the time we are in the campaign in May this will all be a non-issue and everyone will agree to continuing the status quo though the NDP will likely still push for more sick days and better school ventilation.

Which is really a converse way of going about it: rather than a blunt "Covid is over; let's move on", it'd be a constructive "let's see what we can do to prevent future Covid-style crises".  (Of course, if one is of a "Crisis?  What crisis?  It was a 2-year pain in the butt, that's all it was" POV, there'd be no convincing.  And we're not even getting into Plandemic-type POVs.)

[adma]

I'm not sure how much this relates to what I said. I was not referring to the upcoming election but to 2018-2019 when the NDP, led by Sara Singh as Attorney General critic, supposedly focused on 'woke' issues and the harm that apparently did to the NDP in the polls.

I was not actually referring to, as was mentioned earlier, the NDP being lower in overall support at that time than they P.Cs, but to approval/disapproval ratings  which showed, again my memory is far from perfect, either the NDP or Andrea Horwath with lower approval/disapproval ratings than the P.Cs or Doug Ford at that time, which, given how poorly Doug Ford and the P.Cs were doing, is quite incredible.

So, on the one hand we have peopple here who I think are assuming American style attitudes towards Covid onto Ontarians and the consequences that could have on the election, versus arguing that Ontarians aren't concerned about overly 'woke' politicians when that seems to be one of the main things hurting the Democrats in the United States (of course inflation concerns are the main thing.)

Actually, in practice, Horwath has *always* tended to poll in net positives as a leader--in her sleeper way, she succeeds according to the "leader you can have a beer with" barometer of measurement.  But if you're going to pinpoint something 2018-19ish as a critical moment, keep in mind that (a) any pre-Covid net positives for the Ford gov't probably had less to do w/Ford per se than the "adults in the room" who were actually in charge (i.e. at its best, it was a competent Patrick Brown gov't in Doug Ford drag); (b) in that eternal federal-overshadowing-provincial game, the ONDP was likely hampered by association with the federal party in its pre-2019-election doldrums when it still appeared that Jagmeet Singh was more liability than asset, and (c) Doug Ford's way of governing isn't the sort to give Official Opposition oxygen, much less an NDP Official Opposition with a "nails on chalkboard" (Doug's label) female leader.  Plus (d) the major media comfort zone in Ontario is still with a LibCon binary, so they don't know how to handle an NDP Official Opposition as anything but a presumptive "momentary condition".

Sara Singh is invisible to most Ontario voters, much as the Horwath ONDP was pressed into invisibility as Official Opposition; and lower approval/disapproval ratings were more a byproduct of said invisibility with a touch of federal reflected inglory-at-the-time.  Which is a reason why one should watch it with how one uses political Twitter as a litmus of political popularity--particularly as a lot of it is inside baseball courtesy of your usual figurative cast of young-Cons-with-punchable-faces and young-Libs-eager-to-non-sequitur-the-Dippers (or young Dippers who are self-righteous sitting ducks for either).

[adma]

What exactly are these "woke issues" (sic.) that Sara Singh supposedly focused on as Attorney General critic two years ago? I follow Ontario politics pretty closely and i honestly have no idea what this is in reference to?

I have no clue either.  Most I can figure might be that certain Twitter politicos wanted to carp on how the NDP kept on being "NDP-like" even though they were now Official Opposition; and that being "NDP-like" is no path to being a Natural Governing Party.  And as for Sara Singh, maybe she didn't "stop them", or something.

It's almost as if there's a Twitter-politico contingent that wants to manufacture a "radical agenda" mythology, like an Upper Canadian version of the way Critical Race Theory has become an obsession of the US right.  (So what'd be Ontario's corresponding fixation points?  The "cancellation" of the names Dundas & Ryerson?)

[adma]

It strikes me that there might be some "Freedom Twitter" political silo that wants to selectively parse poll numbers and make more of the actively-engaged "popularity" or "unpopularity" of certain political issues (Covid restrictions, "woke" matters, etc) and associated figureheads than there actually is--y'know, acting as if Sara Singh is some kind of household name or there was a whole lot of popular 2018/9-specific news-media-and-water-cooler chatter about the ONDP being Corbyn when they could have been Blair.  It's a little like certain messengers spouting "people don't like modern art" with no regard for the possibility that regardless of their feelings about modern art, "people" don't like those messengers.  (Same reason why for all their claims to represent "people" as opposed to "elites", Libertarian parties worldwide tend to be fringe affairs.)

[adma]

What did Paul Miller do anyways to lead to not being able to run?

I don't know the details here but he had been involved in several HR-related scandals in the past and he is reputed to be a really nasty, toxic guy. Despite being from Hamilton and having the riding next door to Andrea Horwath - by all accounts he and Horwath have always detested each other - so I suspect that once there was a smoking gun, it was a very easy decision for her to dump him.

And his wife's a match for toxicity
https://www.thespec.com/news/hamilton-region/2021/08/17/hamilton-hwdsb-racism-scandal.html

[adma]

NDP really screwed up in Ajax, arguably the most winnable non-Brampton/Oshawa 905 suburb.

What happened in Ajax?

https://www.durhamradionews.com/archives/150460

[adma]

Paul Miller will run as an independent in Hamilton East - Stoney Creek, wonder if this will split the vote at all.

Would be very surprising if he polled well enough for it to matter afaict.

The riding voted NDP by a 22 point margin over the Tories in 2018. It's a competitive riding on the federal level, but the provincial NDP is more popular generally across Ontario and especially in Hamilton. Even if Miller gets 10% of the vote (and not all of these would have otherwise voted NDP), it's still a major uphill battle for anyone to flip.

Put it this way: if the NDP's numbers in HE-SC are low enough for an independent vote splitter to make a difference, they're absolutely screwed.

Actually, I'm seriously wondering if the vote split gives the *Tories* a chance in HESC--remember that the just-plain-Stoney-Creek seat went Harris Tory in '99, and the demos of Hamilton East aren't un-amenable to Obama/Trump dynamics; that is, vulnerable in the same way that seats like Oshawa and Essex and Niagara Centre are vulnerable.

Indeed, maybe we *should* start considering the possibility that for all of Doug Ford's "loathsomeness", the Cons *might* be poised to *build* on their caucus, yea, even at the expense of the NDP.  In which case, I might look not just at Oshawa/Essex/Niagara Centre (or HESC), but...

--Windsor-Tecumseh: open seat, reports that NDP "under-nominated" and the Tories are playing to win--though we've been hearing buzz about Cons being potentially provincially competitive in urban Windsor for ages and it's never concretely come to pass; still, in a "Red Wall Labour breakdown" age, we ought to be prepared.

--The other Niagara seats, likewise for Obama/Trump or Labour/Leave reasons--though Wayne Gates in NF seems formidable, but if *he* retired, etc.  And St Kitts in a post-Jim Bradley era, if the ONDP's still perceived to be "waning" relative to '18 and the Libs still not ready for prime time...

--At least 2 if not all 3 of the Brampton NDP seats, in case '18 is viewed as an anomaly

--*Maybe* a post-Wynne, Mark Saunders-guided DVW; but I'd also look to HRBC & YSW for an odd Ford-ethnoburban twist on "Red Wall Labour" logic

--And surely at least a couple of seats in the N--Thunder Bay-Atikokan; and really, who knows about Gilles Bisson in Timmins anymore (particularly as the city of Timmins has underperformed for Charlie Angus federally over time).

Of course, it doesn't mean they all *are* endangered, or even the only ones endangered--just that they're worth watching...

[adma]

While Horwath is fairly "WWC"-amenable, she's not immune to the broader trend of the non-metropolitan working class shift to the right.  And the PCs are reorienting their politics toward blue collar populism. 

I don't think Ford helps the Tories in Timmin-James Bay, he's perceived as far too Toronto centered.

Actually, the danger is more in the *NDP* being seen as "far too Toronto centered"--by comparison, Ford populism has a certain cross-provincial "universality" about it.  And besides, his form of "Toronto centered", whether through cutting city council in half or plowing through with half-baked and potentially destructive schemes for Ontario Place and the Ontario Line, is more a form of suburban-yahoo "sticking it to the lefties and urban elites".  And those out in the hinterland appreciate that kind of "sticking it".  Plus, there's the matter of broader hinterland rightward trending, as evidenced by Charlie Angus's weak federal share last time and the surprisingly strong PPC share in TJB--and furthermore, provincially speaking, thanks to the "splicing-out" of the far-north ridings this is no longer TJB, but just plain Timmins, so there's no longer a reserve vote to counteract rightward tendencies...

[adma]

I have no idea if it's "easy" but I do think the PCs are seriously targeting Timmins.  Also Ford has no problem at all with "white ethnics."

Plus, even in a place like Timmins, Lib-leaning/NDP-conditional "white ethnics" don't necessarily have a problem defaulting their votes w/the Tories if they see the Libs as not a viable option--which given the present state of the OLP, is a likelihood not to be discounted, like 2018 all over again...

[adma]

Politicians have agency and it is their job to try to understand society and to try to use that knowledge to build support for their parties and for their policies.* If they aren't capable of at least trying to do that, if they would rather raise their hands up in surrender and bewail how hard it is to push against 'trends' beyond their control, then they were lousy politicians anyway and not worth crying over.

_{*Whatever else you can say of the Ford Brothers, they have been very good at doing that - are multi-ethnic industrial suburbs and sink estates natural territory for conservative politics? Certainly not, and yet just look.}

As was the Fords, so was Jack Layton, relative to Quebec in 2011.

In that light, if the ONDP had that kind of fire in their belly, simply on grounds of 2018 precedent they'd be viewing Ajax as targetable/winnable even in the absence of Steve Parish.

[adma]

Re: "white ethnics" Italian Canadians are one of the most pro-Ford demographics around.  Del Duca winning Woodbridge isn't even a guarantee - though it helps that the current MPP hasn't exactly distinguished himself and he gets a leadership boost he didn't have before.  And hard to see King-Vaughan with its high income Italian demographic fall given Stephen Lecce's profile and that it went Conservative in the last federal election (with a bit of an assist from Russian Jews).  It's not your "Brahmin-liberal" demographic.

(Of course York Region is radically different from Northern Ontario).

What's the problem with Tibollo?

Pretty much bombed as Minister of Tourism/Culture/Sport and demoted as a consequence.  That is, his star went down as Lecce's rose...

[adma]

While Horwath is fairly "WWC"-amenable, she's not immune to the broader trend of the non-metropolitan working class shift to the right.  And the PCs are reorienting their politics toward blue collar populism. 

I don't think Ford helps the Tories in Timmin-James Bay, he's perceived as far too Toronto centered.

Actually, the danger is more in the *NDP* being seen as "far too Toronto centered"--by comparison, Ford populism has a certain cross-provincial "universality" about it.  And besides, his form of "Toronto centered", whether through cutting city council in half or plowing through with half-baked and potentially destructive schemes for Ontario Place and the Ontario Line, is more a form of suburban-yahoo "sticking it to the lefties and urban elites".  And those out in the hinterland appreciate that kind of "sticking it".  Plus, there's the matter of broader hinterland rightward trending, as evidenced by Charlie Angus's weak federal share last time and the surprisingly strong PPC share in TJB--and furthermore, provincially speaking, thanks to the "splicing-out" of the far-north ridings this is no longer TJB, but just plain Timmins, so there's no longer a reserve vote to counteract rightward tendencies...

There's no real evidence of that, Ford 2018 victory was based mostly on Anti-Wynne sentiment and swings in rural ridings didn't really stand out compared to to truly gargatuan swings in suburban-exurban Toronto.

Uh, that's because the rural ridings effectively came "pre-swung"; Ford didn't have to pull off a sweat there.  Under the circumstance, what he did was more like expand the hitherto-hinterland Tory big tent *into* the 905/outer-416 zone, much like Harris in '95 and Harper federally by '11.  And that was by tapping into a "common sentiment".

And let's put it straight: for the sake of argument, "suburban-exurban Toronto" is *not* the "Toronto" in question I'm addressing here.  The Toronto I'm talking about is the *inner* 416; and there's little or no evidence (except maybe tokenly w/Mark Saunders-style candidacies) that the Ford Tories even *care* (or indeed, *need*) to make electoral inroads there.  In fact, '18's "anti-Wynne sentiment" might as well have been "anti-Toronto sentiment", hinged in large part upon Wynne being the archetypal "Toronto elite" politician; while Horwath rose essentially by soaking up that "urban Wynne" energy.  That is, the "suburban-exurbans" you speak of are part of the same "anti-Toronto" or "anti-urban elite" coalition--and for the sake of argument, those out in the latent populist boondocks like Timmins who'd feel Horwath to be a little too "big city woke" for comfort these days would gladly team up with the "Ford ethnoburbans", because there's common cause there.  Btw/those in downtown Toronto and those in Timmins, it's the former who'd be more riled up on environmental grounds over the 413 and Bradford Bypass projects; the latter would welcome anything that "gets traffic rolling" for the promised benefit of all Ontarians, even if it's not within their own jurisdiction.  (And even back in the days of Mayor Rob Ford, it might have been claimed that he was far more popular outside of Toronto than within: the archetypal "anti-Toronto" Toronto mayor.)

And that's how it is w/Ontario politics--in high Liberal times, the red vs blue frontier runs along the outer 905; while in high Conservative times, it runs btw/the inner and outer 416.  It all depends on how broadly successful and sweeping the attempt to build an "anti-woke-urban-elite" coalition is.

When it comes to potentially augmenting the Tory caucus, Ford's already written off downtown Toronto.  It's Timmins-type places he's looking at.

And the way you speak of "Toronto" is akin to one who visits friends or relatives "in Toronto" who actually live in York/Peel/Durham, and who never really go beyond the 401/427 except to attend Jays & Raptors games.  While as far as those Lib/NDPers within the inner core go, said friends/relatives of yours (and the pro-Ford values thereof) might as well belong out in the yokel nosebleed boondocks like Bancroft or something.  (That's how Ford-style "coalitions of resentment" develop.)

[adma]

Uh, that's because the rural ridings effectively came "pre-swung"; Ford didn't have to pull off a sweat there.  Under the circumstance, what he did was more like expand the hitherto-hinterland Tory big tent *into* the 905/outer-416 zone, much like Harris in '95 and Harper federally by '11.  And that was by tapping into a "common sentiment".

The fact that he didn't require a swing there to win doesn't change the fact that areas didn't really swing towards him much undercutting your thesis that Ford's brand of anti-Toronto elitism is popular there. Where is your evidence that Ford specific brand has attracted any unique support that wouldn't come to any other generic PC leader ?

Well, to repeat Filuwaúrdjan quote earlier in the thread...

*Whatever else you can say of the Ford Brothers, they have been very good at doing that - are multi-ethnic industrial suburbs and sink estates natural territory for conservative politics? Certainly not, and yet just look.

And of course, Etobicoke North would have been Tory-unwinnable otherwise (and HEBC and YSW would have been 3-way/Tory-2nd-ahead-of-Libs-impossible otherwise).

But of course, those are the urban seats of which you speak.  As far as preexisting Tory seats go: there might not have been *as much of a* swing to the Tories in the hinterland, but there was a swing anyway, largely at the expense of the Libs.  Anything more was redundant, as there'll always be an "anti-Tory" bedrock, even there.  Unless one abides by some idiot-psephological logic that just as the PCs were able to double their share or more to victory in GTA seats, then a seat like Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound ought to have been way up in Crowfoot country.

So it isn't *really* about Ford bringing any unique support to where the PCs were already strong--he didn't need to.  And the more critical places where the Ford Tories underwhelmed relative to the bigger picture weren't in the hinterland, but in the more "cosmopolitan" urban centres:  inner Toronto, Ottawa, etc.

No one is denying the fact that Ford's families rise to power came from channeling the grievances of the amalgamated cities against downtown Toronto. What I am challenging is the idea that specific brand resonates much in isolated communities like Timmins which frankly does not have the links with Toronto specific enough to differentiate between the outer parts and inner-parts. To them and other residents of rural ridings with little connection to the downtown it might simply look like a bickering fight between two parties who you view as being fundemetnalty similar.

Where is your evidence that Ford's brand of politics resonates in rural isolated areas ?

You have to realize that it's not so much specific to Ford as it is symbiotic w/a broader trend t/w working-class right-populism even in areas once felt to be immune to the lure of the Conservatives (eg Labour's Red Wall)--and hints of that were in the past couple of federal elections, both of which came *after* Gilles Bisson's last victory.  Yes, I know Charlie Angus is more of an "outsider" to Timmins proper than Bisson, so is more disadvantaged within this turf.  But all the same, it might be said that Timmins was less of a Tory priority in '18, and Bisson had his electoral history as well as Horwathmania going for him, so that had a way of camouflaging the danger potential beneath the surface.  And that was *before* the last pair of federal elections.

Ford Nation is just one strain of "something bigger".  It's in the same sense that were it the UK, Timmins might be likelier as a "Leave" kind of place.

And even if those within Timmins might generically lack the links to Toronto to draw inner vs outer distinctions, it doesn't mean they're immune to "urban elites" vs "the people" pitches.  And you can be sure that Doug Ford's style of campaigning would play that to the hilt, and try to paint Official Opposition Leader Horwath as being in hock to the urban elites and "special interests":  "you may have voted NDP all those years, but the PCs are henceforth your true home", etc.  (And of course, when it comes to the North, you can be sure that aboriginal issues would be an ugly, unspoken bear-in-the-room when it comes to right-exploitable "special interests".)

[adma]

"Anti-Toronto elitism" already existed in Ontario's hinterland.  Mike Harris rammed through amalgamation and could care less what inner Toronto "progressives" thought about it - not his base.  So Ford didn't really need to "create" anything outside the GTA.

Though one does admit that the notion of Timmins as actively Conservative-targetable is new (other than one-offs such as Kap mayor Al Spacek in '11--and pre-Bisson, a form of Tory populism thrived in Timmins under former leadership contender Alan Pope).  But it's part of a more universal pattern--and if the Tories are looking to build, or at least to "scare the opposition", it's in places like that.  Just like the more critical Labour scalps claimed by the Boris Tories were in places like Dennis Skinner's Bolsover, not within central London, even if a lot of central London went with the 80s Thatcherite flow much as the Harris Tories remained electable within inner Toronto in the 90s in a way the Ford Tories couldn't be.

Remember, too, that what we're talking about is more "anti-elitism" than specifically "anti-Toronto".  (After all, where Ford fell most short in '18 was where it was most "elite" or "educated class":  inner Toronto, Ottawa, even places like Kitchener-Waterloo count.  And that includes nearly losing what ought to have been slam dunks, and acknowledges that the Ford Tories actually *overachieved* expectations in a lot of the places they lost.)

[adma]

Also totally absent of the non-sensical Tory spin put forward by adma is the fact the PC government did nothing for Northeastern Ontario and their downright hostility to Francophones (which are an important group in Timmins area).

I'm not precisely forecasting the Tories will win, because I agree that Bisson *should* be favoured unless Ford's *really* headed into Peterson '87 territory.  However, regardless of what he actually *did*, Doug Ford's good at grandstanding on behalf of the North together with his cabinet bosom buddy Greg Rickford--and then there's the matter of the federal Cons together with PPC last election.  So you can be sure, together w/*whom* they're running, that there's some kind of "careful" strategic thinking here--I'm not saying it's not destined to fail, I'm just acknowledging and presenting it as a forewarning in case it succeeds.  And when it comes to hostility to Francophones: yes, there might be wolf-in-sheep's-clothing tactics on Ford's part, but don't forget how in the North, that could be in fact be electorally mobilized among the non-Franco populace much like hostility to First Nations has been.  (And indeed, might underlie the strong PPC figure last time, as a proxy for past Confederation of Regions-type forces--though if *that's* the case, maybe it was more a factor in Timiskaming District than within Timmins, judging from past patterns.)

The big things working on behalf of Bisson, though, are (a) long-term incumbency, (b) demographics (not just the Franco factor, but the fact that Timmins *is*, in the end, "urban", which can damper the Tory base much as it does in Sudbury), and (c) a possible/likely continued sentiment that a Lib vote is  a wasted vote, unless Del Duca makes big gestures t/w the OLP being a "Francophone party" and thus shoving the Cons up the middle.  However, in a post-Bisson/post-Angus (and maybe post-Ford) era, don't be *entirely* surprised if Timmins sees Conservative parliamentary representation.

[adma]

25 years ago, the idea of the PCs having a better shot at Timmins than St. Paul's was untenable.  But that's where we're at.

*35* years ago, though, under *entirely* different circumstances, provincial PC leader Larry Grossman lost in St Andrew-St Patrick (a riding whose most "Tory" parts lie in present-day St Paul's), while his former PC leadership rival Alan Pope won in Cochrane South (the predecessor to Timmins).  But Pope (whose local appeal was more personal than partisan) fell out w/the party, didn't run again in 1990, and Bisson was elected on Bob Rae's coattails while the PCs finished under 5%, in 4th behind the Confederation of Regions.  (Indeed, the subsequent local grip of "Bisson populism" through his party's most fallow years is not unlike that of Alan Pope in the '87 PC annus horribilis.)

[adma]

My political memory goes back to the 1990s/Harris years and the matching of the federal and provincial ridings in Ontario, so I guess Cochrane South slipped my mind.  The PCs of the Bill Davis era actually did quite well in Northern Ontario.  Ironically it was Mike Harris of North Bay who really bombed in the north.  

Though by 1987, Pope really was exceptional, like Ruth-Ellen Brosseau relative to the NDP in Quebec in '19 and '21.

Also, Harris's bombing in the north had a bit of an assist from how, in '90, Confederation of Regions gave the PCs in the north a bit of a "4th party" stigma, not unlike what Reform would do to the federal PCs in '93.  And even if the CoR phenomenon ebbed by '95, the crippling effect it had on PC infrastructure in the north was lasting...

[adma]

Nate Erskine-Smith votes on the right? He's pretty much as left as you can go as a Liberal before hitting NDP territory

A lot of NDP partisans really dislike NES because he's eaten their lunch in Beaches-East York.  He gets a higher share of the vote than Maria Minna did in the Chretien days.  His personal popularity and the "Brahmin Liberal-ization" of the Beaches has put the federal NDP out of contention there.  And I'm not sure if the seat can be held provincially either.

If it *can* be held provincially, it'd be in the event that the OLP is still in recovery mode from '18, and the NDP can nominate somebody w/more "moderate appeal" than Rima.

However, the Lib candidate, Mary-Margaret McMahon, is probably as good as it gets *there*, and somebody w/a municipal record to match NES in eating the NDP's lunch...

[adma]

A better comparison for NES might actually be Ralph Goodale. The guy just kept winning and winning in a province where being a Liberal candidate usually only wins you a participation trophy. Of course, he kept winning until he lost. Being in Trudeau's cabinet did him no favours in Regina.

Actually, I don't see it, because being Lib in Toronto isn't anywhere as "weird" as being Lib in Sask is--and particularly in an era when the Justin Libs have been sweeping Toronto much as the Chretien Libs did a generation ago, there's nothing exceptional about NES's electoral performance, he's part of the Justin Lib wallpaper.  Besides, we're further now than we were a generation ago from when East Toronto was Hogtown's WWC hub and hence a hub for old-school CCF/NDP support and infrastructure.  And with that shift away from the NDP left has also come a shift away from the populist right; it's much more of an "urban middle" riding now than it was at any point in the c20.

The truer Ontario version of Ralph Goodale would be somebody like Jim Bradley, who kept winning and winning for the provincial Libs in St Catharines until he lost in '18, and in a riding which otherwise might have gone for Rae/Harris-style waves (and was federally never particularly Lib-exceptional, was Reform/Alliance-targeted and then represented by HarperCon from '06-15).

NES might be astute, but it's jumping the gun to call him Goodale-like.  And besides, there's also the case of the idiosyncratic Lib populism (maybe less NES-like than Rob Ford/Ralph Klein-like) that allowed Dennis Mills to hang on to Broadview-Greenwood/Toronto-Danforth from '88 until Jack Layton unseated him (with difficulty) in '04.

Anyway, back to OnPoli. An interesting by-product of the 2018 election is that universal swings are gonna be really bad at predicting Liberal strength. In 2018, personal brand played a big role in the few ridings where the Liberals didn't get absolutely humiliated.

For example, 338Canada says Eglinton-Lawrence will be the 5th most Liberal-friendly seat in the 416, that Mississauga-Lakeshore is the most Liberal-friendly seat in Mississauga, and that Oakville is more likely to go Liberal than Ajax.

Obviously, universal swings are never perfect, but the ridings I mentioned are typically much less Liberal than their surroundings. Expect to see some really bad riding projections this time out.

I agree about that kind of universal-swingism being a crock.  However, it does touch upon how the '18 Ontario election was much more "UK-like" in that there really was a "Labour vs Lib Dem" dynamic going--and in that sense, the ridings you mention are definitely much more *Lib Dem* than their surroundings, when it comes to strategic anti-Ford options.  So if the OLP are destined to remain a Lib Dem-ish 3rd party (which they already are in seat numbers), they probably *would* be hyperfocussing upon the Oakvilles and Mississauga-Lakeshores. 

Remember that there's 2 potential Liberal identities--the big-tent macro-identity, and the more "left option where NDP's not viable" micro-identity.  (Which'd also presuppose that the NDP might/should/ought to have the infrastructure to actually be viable in Mississauga, the way they are in Burnaby or Surrey.  Yeah, easier said, etc.  That's how presumptions that Ford has this election in the bag come to roost)