[PinkLucy]

I'm pretty sure that dogs and cats are vastly superior to Ford in the brain cell department.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

I can't wait for January. Let the games begin!

Sorry but municipal politics is no game! January will be the beginning of a very serious matter

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

If Ford does win the next election, what would it mean for Toronto? Do things get a little better or a lot worse?

 

[GenerationW]

If Ford does win the next election, what would it mean for Toronto? Do things get a little better or a lot worse?

It would mean thrills, chills......and spills!

 

[CowboyLogic]

You think Ford won (in part) because of his inclusiveness?!?! I don't even know how to respond to that. I can't think of a more divisive mayor in Toronto's history. He's almost made his career on deriding the "pinko, latte-sipping, down-town elites". Miller may not have been giving the burbs exactly what they wanted, but you'll notice that a very large number of his city building initiatives were targeted at improving transit in the suburbs and targeting funds into more troubled parts of the city. He at least tried to make things better for all Torontonians, while Ford is basically a giant middle finger pointed at anyone who disagrees with him.

1) I actually was saying the opposite: Ford won because of the divisiveness in this city. His win was largely seen as a revolt by the suburbs, who felt their needs were being neglected by the downtown elites. I'm not interested in debating whether this is true, but political divisiveness in Toronto predated Ford.

2) That being said, Ford isn't nearly as divisive as people seem to imply. He actually had strong levels of support downtown. In Trinity Spadina, he pulled about 25% of the vote. He had more support than Pantalone in all but a few ridings. And besides some comments made by Don Cherry, I don't believe he has been divisive in the least. The divisiveness all stems from the anti-Ford faction IMO, who have been trying to get Ford booted for any reason, attacked the man's image and character endlessly, opposed anything he supports on the basis of him supporting it and taken criticism beyond the limits of reasonableness.

I actually live downtown (or close enough at least). I cannot think of one thing Ford has done which has made me feel neglected or alienated.

What you're saying is that Ford's "Cut the gravy" is clearer than the "One city together" approach. Sorry mate, but I say that both are just as clear in their roles as stances- non-partisanship is just as important a goal as cutting waste.

"One City": "Let's bridge our differences- prevent our city from balkanizing itself" as a political stance. Let's get proper discussion around fixing issues A, B and C, which are discussed further in the mayoral platform.

"Cut the Waste": "Waste is bad" as a political stance. My topic focuses on issue A solely, the approach to how I approach it isn't important.

While I agree with other points that a "One City" approach may not necessarily win on its own merits on the account of modern-day politics being modern-day politics, it's much better than a single-issue mayoral race.

Non-partisanship is important, but it is only an approach. It doesn't tell you anything about what Chow's stance on any issue. Its essentially We're going to work together fairly and compromise. That doesn't tell you anything about where Chow stands on any given issue. All that tells me is that Chow is going to be a little nicer dealing with other councilors - where does she stand on taxes? where does she stand on transit? where does she stand on anything?

I have no problem with this theme, but I simply don't think it will resonate with voters. "Cut the gravy" resonated because the average voter was fed up with what they saw as wasteful government spending. "Cut the gravy" = "save money with efficiencies as opposed to raising tax or cutting services". That slogan tells you what you need to know about Ford, what his priorities are and what he's going to do in office.

 

[PinkLucy]

Chow has been very involved in transit and congestion issues. I'm quite sure she will speak to that during the campaign and incorporate it into the overall One Toronto approach.

 

[jje1000]

Non-partisanship is important, but it is only an approach. It doesn't tell you anything about what Chow's stance on any issue. Its essentially We're going to work together fairly and compromise. That doesn't tell you anything about where Chow stands on any given issue. All that tells me is that Chow is going to be a little nicer dealing with other councilors - where does she stand on taxes? where does she stand on transit? where does she stand on anything?

I have no problem with this theme, but I simply don't think it will resonate with voters. "Cut the gravy" resonated because the average voter was fed up with what they saw as wasteful government spending. "Cut the gravy" = "save money with efficiencies as opposed to raising tax or cutting services". That slogan tells you what you need to know about Ford, what his priorities are and what he's going to do in office.

You're approaching this from unequal grounds. As others have stated, that the campaigning hasn't started yet, heck we don't even know if Chow's running. The platform will depend on who runs, be it Tory, Chow or some white knight candidate.

However, what we do know is the approach, which I personally find it equally as important as the result. Ford's my-way-or-the-highway-tough-guy approach and constant unfair potshots at others did not win him any favours from city councilors (who are also elected by the citizens). By laying out your way of treating other people, people can begin to get a grasp of the way you will run the government. Do you want to include everyone in your government, take the best ideas from both sides? Or do you want the government run your way, your way only?

This acceptance and incorporation of opposing views is the way is the way you truly should govern, (and coincidentally is the reason why Merkel in Germany is on the way to her third mandate).

Of course, please don't tell me that non-partisanship = wastefulness, because that's a line that's been constantly trotted out for the last thirty years.

 

[guitarchitect]

So I can't critique a "not-yet-candidate who doesn't have a platform"? Who exactly are you talking about, because MetroMan has apparently confirmed Chow is a done deal and detailed her platform.

Chow has been discussed ad nauseum on here for the past couple days, both in regards to her being a candidate and what her platform will be. But yeah, once someone criticizes her, it can't be discussed anymore.

I'm saying it's silly to repeatedly criticize the platform of someone who doesn't have a platform (because she's not a candidate yet). It's specifically your statement of "she doesn't have a clear message/what are he policies i have no idea at least we know what Ford stands for" that I'm calling out, here. Criticize her all you want for what she has done as an MP, but painting Ford as the solid candidate because Chow's not-yet-campaign isn't full formed is a bit glib/dishonest.

In other news, I heard Doug Ford wants to run for MPP. Can you guys believe that? He expects me to vote for him but honestly - i have NO IDEA was his position is on anything in provincial politics, he has yet to take a firm stance or even TELL US what he'll be doing as an MPP. What a weak platform, he doesn't stand a chance against <insert incumbent with track record here> who has a very clear position on things.

 

[guitarchitect]

It doesn't matter. Ford saved a billion dollars, balanced the budget for the first time in history and brought subways to Scarborough. Olivia Chow lived in publicly-subsidized housing and her husband got hand jobs from hookers.

This is the distillate of Ford Nation's opinion on Olivia Chow. I'm pretty sure that's both horrifying and depressing.

 

[freshcutgrass]

This is the distillate of Ford Nation's opinion on Olivia Chow. I'm pretty sure that's both horrifying and depressing.

That's the insidious nature of conservative politics. It isn't really about being for things...it's about being against things.

It doesn't matter that Chow isn't officially a candidate, nor do we know anything about her platform if she did run. the fact is that there's a substantial chunk of the electorate out there that has already made up their minds that they are simply voting against Chow.

 

[dbailey62]

I don't understand people's obsession with subways. Yes, it's nice that it's away from traffic and it's fast (at times) but that's about it. I would rather be above ground where I can look out the window at things, have the sun coming in, have the ability to exit and flee the area if an emergency occurs instead of being underground in a shoe box with nothing to look at but the floor. Subways can be depressing.

That's how I feel as well.

 

[adma]

What your saying is that Toronto want straight forward talk.


I agree. People want someone they can have a beer with. Chow and Miller were not that.

Actually, I thought that in 2003 Miller's success (and Tory's near-success) did have something to do with the "someone they can have a beer with" quality (and Barbara Hall's failure had to do w/the lack of the same). Likewise w/Jack Layton in 2011, especially in Quebec...(and Iggy w/the lack-of quality)

 

[adma]

Anyone good with video? Here's an idea for a grassroots negative campaign for Youtube:

Find a few examples of Ford saying "Anything else?"

Find a few examples of Ford running from the media, including the time he walks into the camera.

Then, using a combination of text and pictures, begin the retelling of all the Ford scandals, from the simple and stupid like the time he gave the finger to the mother in the next car, to the serious and dangerous, like the drunk driving or the associations with criminals.

You can also throw in there a few direct questions that Ford has never answered like, "MAYOR FORD, WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THESE THREE INDIVIDUALS, ONE LATER MURDERED, THE OTHER TWO ARRESTED?" or "MAYOR FORD, HAD YOU BEEN DRINKING BEFORE YOU DROVE YOURSELF TO THE TASTE OF THE DANFORTH?" or "MAYOR FORD, IS IT NOT GRAVY WHEN YOUR OFFICE STAFFERS SPEND CITY RESOURCES TO ASSIST YOUR FOOTBALL TEAM?" or "MAYOR FORD, WHAT DOES LONG-TIME FAMILY FRIEND DAVE PRICE DO IN YOUR OFFICE AND IS THIS WORTH $130,000 A YEAR SALARY?".

Between each Ford scandal or episode cut to him once again asking "Anything else?", so that it seems like he's asking for just what more he could have possibly done. The idea is to illustrate just how never-ending Ford screw-ups and scandals have been, will continue to be, and how significant and serious some of them have been.

Throw in the shots of him hiding and running from the media, making them more frequent as the video progresses.

I made this through YouTube Doubler, if it's a hint of what can be done

http://www.youtubedoubler.com/?vide...e.com/watch?v=G7WEiqzuaoA&start2=&authorName=

 

[adma]

I have no problem with this theme, but I simply don't think it will resonate with voters. "Cut the gravy" resonated because the average voter was fed up with what they saw as wasteful government spending. "Cut the gravy" = "save money with efficiencies as opposed to raising tax or cutting services". That slogan tells you what you need to know about Ford, what his priorities are and what he's going to do in office.

Actually, it wasn't "cut the gravy". It was "stop the gravy train".

 

[adma]

And, may I offer this once again: it's still far from certain that Ford *will* be a candidate in 2014--and remember, those of you despairing over Project Traveller's redaction-beyond-recognition: if not on legal grounds, it might be on health grounds.

So, rather than the worst-case-scenario of Ford being reelected on his so-called record, it might be a comparatively inoffensive proxy like Michael Thompson being elected on the Ford term's record. Which might, in practice, be little more "awful" than Tory winning over Miller in 2003 would have been...