[LowPolygon]

You folks really don't get it, do you? People love Rob Ford because he's human, real, and doesn't hide in some secret layer of bureaucracy like David Miller etc. All classes, cultures etc love him.

Yes, we "the common folk" get it: Rob Ford is part of the elite--he could be our boss, our manager, the jerk in the corner office. But he's also hilarious good fun and like us, he isn't perfect ... he even joins us on lunch break to chat about sports, have a smoke ... We may change our minds someday but for now, he's our man, man!

Just admit it--you like Rob Ford because he thinks Justin Trudeau's a fag, and he avoids Pride like the plague.

Go Rob Ford!

 

[guitarchitect]

I am quite familiar with that article. In fact, I was informed by Toronto Life that the letter I wrote in response will be published in the next issue (voicing the same criticism of ecological fallacy). You can come up with dozens of plausible explanations for why a particular type of person would or would not vote for Ford. But a plausible explanation is not a correct explanation.

again... i have the same issues with the numbers... did you read the part that talks about how Ford can connect with a large portion of the electorate that other candidates can't/didn't connect with? because that's the part that's worth considering (in the context of the discussion that was happening earlier... which was a lot of talk about suburb vs. urban... and this article was posted as a response to that)

 

[Silence&Motion]

again... i have the same issues with the numbers... did you read the part that talks about how Ford can connect with a large portion of the electorate that other candidates can't/didn't connect with? because that's the part that's worth considering (in the context of the discussion that was happening earlier... which was a lot of talk about suburb vs. urban... and this article was posted as a response to that)

But we have no proof that Ford actually connected with that portion of the electorate for the reasons stated by the author. It is purely his speculative opinion. The people who voted for Ford had plenty of reasons to do it. Even if we accept that it was his low-tax message that motivated their support (as opposed to say his pro-car, anti-union, or tough-on-crime message) we can't say whether this message resonated mostly with poor people or with rich people. It is possible that, as the author claims, poor people supported lower taxes because they weren't feeling the benefits of city services out in the suburbs. But it is equally possible that the message resonated primarily with wealthy and financially stable people who don't need and don't care about city services in the first place. This second explanation seems more likely to me only because it conforms to existing political science research in general.

 

[jusbokeh]

Also can't forget that a sizeable portion of the Muslim and south Asian immigrant population voted for rob ford simply because he was a straight man.
The black carribean population and African communities(somali)in etobicoke are not to fond of homosexuals.

People love to ignore this fact and forget that a homophobic radio ad was played on a Tamil radio station before the elections.

 

[guitarchitect]

But we have no proof that Ford actually connected with that portion of the electorate for the reasons stated by the author. It is purely his speculative opinion.

Aha. Now I see your angle. Just out of curiosity, is your stance on the video "until I see it with my own eyes it doesn't exist and even if I do see it it was probably faked"?
Plenty have people have explained why they voted for Ford. It's usually along the lines of "I like subways and he does too" as well as "I want to end the wasteful spending at City Hall" (not that anyone that says this could articulate what is wasteful and why). I don't know about you, but the fact that he's a populist and people generally voted for him because of his sloganeering is enough to understand their motivation, and how they connect with him.

I mean, you clearly don't like the author's take on the stats but... he goes on to talk about how smitherman did overwhelmingly well in the more affluent parts of town (~75% of the vote), not to mention he did well where the median home value is $500K compared to $400K median for Ford-strong areas. Doesn't that take a bit of a chunk out of your second explanation?

I agree that people that care less about city services are much more likely to vote for Ford - but I honestly feel that's a suburban vs. urban mentality (downtown you walk a lot more and care about streetscapes and parks regardless of income level , in suburbs you drive everywhere and probably don't care that much about streetscaping). Certainly the only real way to get a solid answer would be to poll everyone in the city and ask their opinion... but I don't think that's a reason to call everything short of it "speculative opinion"

 

[RC8]

Yes, we "the common folk" get it: Rob Ford is part of the elite--he could be our boss, our manager, the jerk in the corner office. But he's also hilarious good fun and like us, he isn't perfect ... he even joins us on lunch break to chat about sports, have a smoke ... We may change our minds someday but for now, he's our man, man!

 

[NYCBoy2305]

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/l/u.htm --their concerns ignored by the NDP and Liberals, reduced to supporting Ford.
Lumpenproletariat
Roughly translated as slum workers or the mob, this term identifies the class of outcast, degenerated and submerged elements that make up a section of the population of industrial centers. It includes beggars, prostitutes, gangsters, racketeers, swindlers, petty criminals, tramps, chronic unemployed or unemployables, persons who have been cast out by industry, and all sorts of declassed, degraded or degenerated elements. In times of prolonged crisis (depression), innumerable young people also, who cannot find an opportunity to enter into the social organism as producers, are pushed into this limbo of the outcast. Here demagogues and fascists of various stripes find some area of the mass base in time of struggle and social breakdown, when the ranks of the Lumpenproletariat are enormously swelled by ruined and declassed elements from all layers of a society in decay.

 

[LowPolygon]

....It includes beggars, prostitutes, gangsters, racketeers, swindlers, petty criminals, tramps, chronic unemployed or unemployables, persons who have been cast out by industry, and all sorts of declassed, degraded or degenerated elements....

hey! Etobicoke's not that bad!

 

[Irishmonk]

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/l/u.htm
Lumpenproletariat
Roughly translated as slum workers or the mob, this term identifies the class of outcast, degenerated and submerged elements that make up a section of the population of industrial centers. It includes beggars, prostitutes, gangsters, racketeers, swindlers, petty criminals, tramps, chronic unemployed or unemployables, persons who have been cast out by industry, and all sorts of declassed, degraded or degenerated elements.

Where's Travis Bickle when you need him?

 

[adma]

Remembver: we wouldn't be having this depth of deconstructive discussion were it mere Mel Lastman rather than Ford.

 

[Silence&Motion]

Aha. Now I see your angle. Just out of curiosity, is your stance on the video "until I see it with my own eyes it doesn't exist and even if I do see it it was probably faked"?
Plenty have people have explained why they voted for Ford. It's usually along the lines of "I like subways and he does too" as well as "I want to end the wasteful spending at City Hall" (not that anyone that says this could articulate what is wasteful and why). I don't know about you, but the fact that he's a populist and people generally voted for him because of his sloganeering is enough to understand their motivation, and how they connect with him.

I mean, you clearly don't like the author's take on the stats but... he goes on to talk about how smitherman did overwhelmingly well in the more affluent parts of town (~75% of the vote), not to mention he did well where the median home value is $500K compared to $400K median for Ford-strong areas. Doesn't that take a bit of a chunk out of your second explanation?

I agree that people that care less about city services are much more likely to vote for Ford - but I honestly feel that's a suburban vs. urban mentality (downtown you walk a lot more and care about streetscapes and parks regardless of income level , in suburbs you drive everywhere and probably don't care that much about streetscaping). Certainly the only real way to get a solid answer would be to poll everyone in the city and ask their opinion... but I don't think that's a reason to call everything short of it "speculative opinion"

Claims unsupported by evidence are speculative opinion. That doesn't mean they're worthless. However, to pass them off as established facts are just irresponsible (as Preville appears to do).

I actually agree with your claim about the "suburban vs. urban mentality". I think this explanation of Ford's support vs. opposition is much more convincing than the class division argument that Preville makes. In fact, the opinion polling that's been done by Forum Research shows a much stronger relationship between things like driving a car and supporting Ford than it does with income or ethnicity and supporting Ford.

The claim about the video is a red herring that I probably shouldn't humour, but what the hell. I believe in temporarily accepting whatever explanation has the best evidence at the moment. What is more likely? That three journalists with no history of lying would all make up the same story about a video, that some prankster used Hollywood style special effects to create a false video, or that the video in fact exists. I think the third explanation clearly has more evidence. Of course, there is always going to be doubt until the actual video is made public.

 

[dforthandbview]

Just a head's up, the Ontario Press Council hearing regarding The Star and Globe and Mail's reporting of the Fords will be tomorrow. I'm not sure if the media will have a chance to defend themselves or if it's just the complainants that speak, but it'll be on TV for all to see. CPAC and RogersTV starting at 10am.

 

[Peepers]

Also can't forget that a sizeable portion of the Muslim and south Asian immigrant population voted for rob ford simply because he was a straight man.
The black carribean population and African communities(somali)in etobicoke are not to fond of homosexuals.

People love to ignore this fact and forget that a homophobic radio ad was played on a Tamil radio station before the elections.

+1

This is a subject that the media considers too taboo to touch. The fact is even if Smitherman wasn't such a huge slime-ball - we are living in an era when it is becoming increasing difficult if not outright impossible for a gay male to get elected Mayor in this city. The demographics of this city are rapidly changing and increasingly the electorate is made up of people who do not share traditional Canadian values of tolerance in fact increasingly they are adherents of a religion that teaches them being gay is a crime punishable by death.

 

[Admiral Beez]

. The demographics of this city are rapidly changing and increasingly the electorate is made up of people who do not share traditional Canadian values of tolerance i.

Traditional Canadian values of tolerance? Not in the Canada I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s. Half of the slurs I'd heard in the school yard would be considered a hate crime today.

How do you define "traditional"? I would argue that the idea of tolerance goes against traditional Canadian values. The idea of tolerance or even acceptance of others is a recent, not traditional ideal.

 

[Peepers]

Traditional Canadian values of tolerance? Not in the Canada I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s. Half of the slurs I'd heard in the school yard would be considered a hate crime today.

How do you define "traditional"? I would argue that the idea of tolerance goes against traditional Canadian values. The idea of tolerance or even acceptance of others is a recent, not traditional ideal.

Perhaps "traditional" was not a good choice of words because as you noted when you go back in time there was far less tolerance for people who were different in the 50's and 60's. Compared to most countries Canada has been in recent decades a very tolerant society. It would be a mistake however to think that Canada will remain that way in fact I see signs that we are starting to slip backwards.