The Daily Exchange: Is the media missing the message?

It finally happened. I’m just surprised it took so long.

At some point in every campaign, the news media start reporting that one of the leaders will no longer take an unlimited number of reporters’ questions. Often it’s the frontrunner who is accused of running a “bubble campaign.” This time, two leaders, Dalton McGuinty and Tim Hudak, are subjects of the journalists' complaints.

While both sides’ positions have some merit, the journalists’ perspective gets thoroughly communicated (naturally enough) in the media. Allow me, then, to explain the politicians’ perspective.

Most citizens (being busy people and having numerous family, work and community responsibilities beside voting) have easy access to only a limited number of information sources about the candidates and their policies. The two primary sources are paid advertising (what each party says about itself and the others) and news media coverage.

Almost every day of the campaign, a party tries to expose and explain a different part of its platform, and to communicate it to the voters through the news media. Some reporters denigrate these as “re-announcements” but, to the vast majority of voters who don’t know the parties’ platforms cover-to-cover, these are fresh announcements, in the sense that most Ontarians haven’t heard them before.

Obviously the parties have self-interest in communicating their policies clearly and cleanly. But there’s a democratic interest at stake too. If the news media choose not to report a party’s substantive message – and in a free society the media have every right to report (and to ignore) what they please – then the voters lose the opportunity to be better informed, and to make their own choices based on the information.

Some argue for the so-called “scrum” format of media questioning because it prevents candidates from taking time to prepare their answers and fashion responses. So what? Governing is not a closed-book exam. Those whom we elect are allowed to consult experts, stakeholders and other citizens, to consider different options, and to take time making decisions. Surely the substance of their policies (yes, the scripted, prepared, planned, premeditated substance of what they intend to do) matters at least as much as their skill in responding off-the-cuff to “gotcha” questions from the press gallery.

Another argument is that the news media serve the public interest by probing topics that the leaders do not want to address – for example, Liberal cabinet minister Dave Levac's admission that a new carbon tax is actively being reviewed. Certainly the Levac revelation deserves great attention. (As one pundit quipped, the official Liberal explanation for what happened, that Levac “misspoke,” is political language meaning, “unwisely told the truth.”)

Yet for each instance of a Levac-type revelation, there are multiple examples where reporters focus on topics more relevant to them than to voters. The media’s fascination with the conduct of press conferences is typical. Another example is giving provincial (or national) profile to the antics of obscure candidates in ridings their parties will never win.

One academic, herself a well-respected former journalist, makes the case that snubbing reporters is akin to snubbing the public. I’d say that depends in large measure on whether the reporters are pursuing public priorities or their own pet causes.

And the upshot of yesterday’s news media stories about how Mr. Hudak and Mr. McGuinty are handling the very same news media? Those stories supplanted coverage that might have told voters more about their policies and plans, and thereby helped to create a better-informed electorate.

- Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris and Stephen Harper

 

Response from Jeffrey Ferrier, former communications director for the Ontario NDP:

As a former journalist, I don't envy the reporters covering the leaders’ tours.  

Back when I was reporting, the expectation was that you would file a story a day. Since then, we have seen significant media fragmentation, the rise of the Internet and social media, and newsroom consolidations.

The result?

The expectation now is that reporters will file from the second they start their day until the moment their shift ends. They tweet. They take pictures. They blog. They do online chats. They file video. They do radio and TV hits. They file their stories. They do all this while spending 16-hour days whizzing about the province on a bus, eating food of questionable nutritional value. And amid all this they have to do their actual research and reporting.

All this is to say that I understand journalists' frustration with tightly-scripted leaders tours like those or Tim Hudak and Dalton McGuinty. The extreme message control doesn’t make reporters’ jobs easy. Neither does the leaders’ repetition of the same canned talking points. Or the barrage of negative attacks aimed at the other party leaders. Or the complete lack of interaction with ordinary voters.  

All this got me thinking: If I were still a reporter, how would I deal with this?
 

1. I would scale back the attention I pay to the leaders tours. The fact is, party platforms give me all the information I need to report on the substantive choices the parties and leaders are offering voters. I don't need to attend staged photo-ops to do that.

2. I would get out of the campaign bubble and talk to real voters. How? I would go to people's doorsteps, to community centres and coffee shops, and ask folks what issues matter to them, and what they want done about it. Then I would go to the party leaders and ask questions. Elections are about voters and their agenda, not the parties and theirs.

3. I would limit my use of polls to understanding what issues matter to voters. Focusing on the horse race and who's winning takes away from coverage of the issues, so I'd steer clear of that.

4. I would set up my email filter so that correspondence from campaign "war rooms" goes directly to the trash. Covering anything these distraction factories push is a complete waste of time.

5. There is one leaders tour event that I would cover very closely - debates. Put the leaders on a stage, have them exchange ideas on the province's future, get them to tell us where they stand and how they’re different - now that's something worth covering. There’s only one problem with covering debates. You can’t cover debates when some leaders won't show up. That’s a pity.

 

Response from Erika Mozes, former senior adviser to George Smitherman and Gerard Kennedy:

The “bubble campaign” is not a new phenomenon in politics. It’s not new because it is tried, tested and true.

Guy’s points as to why politicians run tight campaigns are dead on. This election is no different – both Mr. Hudak and Mr. McGuinty are using this model. Why both? Because both, depending on what poll you look at, are the “front runners.”

The media access question upsets politicos, but it does not upset the general public. Personally, I was outraged (!) that Prime Minister Harper limited his scrum questions to five during the Federal election. Yet I’m on the Premier’s side when he keeps scrums short in this election. Why? Because it works. It keeps your campaign on track – messages short and in line with the message of the day.

Look, campaigns know what happens when they aren’t in control. Ask John Tory in the last provincial election. Mr. Tory, I’m sure to the chagrin of his handlers, could not say no to answering questions, and even more perplexing, could not limit his answer to less than 3 minutes. The more he said, the more questions. The more questions, the more off message. The more off message, the more troublesome the failed “private school tax credit” became. 

Guy is right, in the absence of an exciting campaign with the leaders, media are falling for the “look at that candidate” trick. Whether it be Mr. Levac (who, let me point out is not a cabinet minister as Guy mentions), the NDP’s Anthony Marco (the Niagara candidate with questionable musings on his podcast), or the PC’s Jack McLaren/Randy Hiller (the “landowner duo” who the Liberal party liken to the rising tea party politics in the PC party), parties want media to focus on the other guys to try to knock the other party’s daily message. It worked well for the PC party yesterday with the Liberal campaign having to pivot and unequivocally say, no, we are not considering a carbon tax.

In an election where the ballot question is….well I guess frankly not clear….and the two front-running parties are not dramatically opposed on sexy platforms items, if I were the media I would also be writing stories on the “bubble.”  As an observer of the election, do not expect the bubble to change. 

But as I have stated in my past posts, make sure to read the platforms and ask yourself the credibility question: Does the party I support have a credible plan? Is it affordable? Is it reasonable? Can they govern with these priorities? I think some scrutiny will show that the Ontario Liberal plan is the only one which will not abruptly shift the economy, and will secure our social services without bankrupting the treasury.

 

The Daily Exchange: Does the media pay enough attention to election platforms?

I used to watch the original American Idol – you know, when the judges were Randy Jackson, Simon Cowell and Paula Abdul. Randy was “Mr. Reasonable,” while Simon was “Mr. Caustic.” Paula was “Ms. Nice,” the one who made all the contestants feel good.

Paula came across as charming and sincere, in part aided by the fact that she is, well, a “she,” and Randy and Simon were “he's.” But what always struck me was what happened when you actually listened to what Paula was saying, rather than how she was saying it, or whether she was wearing orange shoes while saying it. You noticed that surprisingly little of it made sense. Which brings me to this election.

Election platforms matter. They are a party’s principles and ideas, made on paper and ink (or, these days, pixels). They should be grounded in facts, internally consistent, and honestly costed. Every party’s platform should be scrutinized by reporters and the public with the same rigour and, where they are deficient, those deficiencies should be explored.

At the risk of upsetting Jeff, I’ll observe that NDP platforms have historically not received the kind of in-depth probing of the Liberal or PC platforms. This pattern has held true for this election. It is a disservice to the public. The quality of a party’s platform is a measure of its readiness to form (or participate) in government. In my opinion, the NDP’s election platform is weak, platitudinous, and detached from reality. It is not the platform of a party ready or able to govern.

Because my last tour of duty in government was as a senior staff member at the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, I’ll pluck two of their health-related promises to illustrate my point.

The NDP habitually identifies capping hospital (and other broader public sector) salaries at twice the Premier’s salary, or $417,948, as a way to find “big” savings for “reinvestment” in the health system. In fact, if you ask them how they plan to bend the health care cost curve, capping executive salaries is their go-to response. I’m sure it’s very popular. The trouble is, it won’t work.

Capping the salaries of hospital employees would reap a total one-time savings of only $3.7 million, which is two-hundreds of one percent of hospitals’ total annual operating budgets. Moreover, it would slash the pay of many of front-line staff physicians (like those at The Hospital for Sick Children), as well the pay of world-class medical researchers who keep Ontario at the forefront of medical discovery.

Don’t get me wrong: I am not defending the salaries of hospital executives, even though Ontario’s are the best in the country and, in many cases, among the best in the world. What I am doing is pointing out that the NDP’s “silver bullet” in terms of health care cost control would be absolutely and totally ineffective at actually controlling costs and – bonus! – be potentially harmful to the health care system.

On to my second example.

Like Tim Hudak, the NDP has promised to abolish Local Health Integration Networks, or LHINs, and “replace them with effective local decision-making.” What does this mean? They don’t say. However, because NDP MPPs have often introduced private members bills that would see hospital board members (who are legally responsible for hospitals’ operations) directly elected by the public, let’s assume this is their plan.

Why is this a bad idea? Because in such a model, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care would resume control over hospital funding (control currently rests with the LHINs), and would continue with its standard-setting and accountability-enforcing functions. Without the ability to raise revenue (presumably through property tax hikes), the NDP’s elected hospital trustees would have little say about how much money their hospital receives, and little over how it would be spent. In short, there would be precious little for the elected trustees to do – certainly not enough to justify the expense of electing them and paying them.

Now, let’s assume for a moment that the NDP really does intend to give elected hospital trustees the necessary taxation power and control over spending decisions within the hospital. In such a system, local elections would become pitched battles between interest groups, many of whom would have little regard for the actual needs of patients. One can easily imagine certain groups fielding candidates that oppose women’s health services, or candidates promising to create a costly specialty service, regardless of the fact that is already offered nearby. The possibilities are endless and frightening, and would result in a health system none of us would want to use. Again, is this what the NDP really proposes to do? And if so, isn’t it time they told us clearly?

Now here’s my point: the NDP haven’t been clear about any their health care plans, or their economic plans, or their education plans, and it’s kind of a big deal.

At this point in the election, the media and public seem focused on Andrea Horwath’s personality and fresh face. I am sure she is very nice, and very smart, and she is absolutely a great ambassador for her party. And, for some people, her not being either Dalton/Randy or Tim/Simon will be enough. That said, one has to believe that NDP strategists are hoping reporters, and Ontarians, keep looking at her shoes instead of reading about, listening to, or pondering what she’s actually saying.

I, however, think her party and her platform should to receive the same scrutiny that other parties have received. We aren’t electing an Idol, we are electing a Premier.

ADDENDUM: This morning the NDP released a new number associated with hospital CEO salaries - $80 million. Leader Andrea Horwath announced the NDP’s breastfeeding and birthing centre commitment, and said she would pay for it “by capping the salaries of hospital CEOs at $418,000 which will free up about $80 million.”  The thing is, the math is not only off, but dangerous.  As per my post this morning, at best, the NDP could save $3.7 M from capping the salaries of hospital CEOs. 

- Erika Mozes, former senior adviser to George Smitherman and Gerard Kennedy

 

Response from Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris and Stephen Harper:

That’s an excellent question. Do political platforms receive the scrutiny they deserve, from the news media, from citizens, and even from the other political parties?

Of course not.

If a party is open, honest and transparent about a policy proposal, and the public has full opportunity to review, to consider and to evaluate the proposal before voting (whether or not anyone does), then upon forming a government it’s legitimate for the party to implement the policy. In doing so the party is operating under well-known, commonly accepted rules.

Note that the word I used is “legitimate”: in other words, allowed under the rules of our democracy. That’s not the same as public approval or popular support. (Politicians talk about mandates, forgetting that the original meaning of "mandate" was “order” or “command” and only more recent is the usage, “authority to act.”) For example, by voting Liberal in the last provincial election were voters telling government to eliminate the capital tax? Of course not. Nor were they telling government to keep the tax. Most voters may not even have held an opinion. Nonetheless, the Liberals possessed legitimate authority to fulfill their 2007 election commitment, and they did.

On the one hand, it’s a mistake for a government to take public support of its platform for granted. As the platform is implemented, the governing party must continue to explain, to persuade, and to convince. On the other hand, before elections, the media and public need to pay more attention to political platforms – precisely because the winner will gain authority to implement.

How are the news media doing? Yesterday Andrea Horwath was talking about the agriculture-and-food components of her platform. Instead of covering the substance, the media preferred to talk about the inane web postings of an obscure NDP candidate with no chance of winning. The PC and Liberal leaders also talked about policies. What did the voters learn? That politicians spent the day driving tractors.

Both the media and the public should pay more attention to parties’ platforms. Since it’s the job of the former to convey information to the latter, the news media bear more of the responsibility to make our elections battles over substance.

 

Response from Jeffrey Ferrier, former communications director for the Ontario NDP:

Erika – so far in this campaign, you’ve called the Leader of Ontario’s New Democrats the premier’s unemployed sibling, a nobody, and now Paula Abdul.

If we want to focus on policy, I think we need to stop the name-calling, and start having serious conversations about the province’s future.

Here’s a suggestion for increasing the focus on policy issues. Maybe you've heard it from me before. Let’s have more debates.

Andrea Horwath has invited the two other party leaders to take part in more debates. She's not just talking the talk. She's walking the walk. Tonight, she's taking part in a local riding debate in Hamilton. On Friday, she'll join Tim Hudak in Thunder Bay at a Northern Ontario debate.

I trust you’re already on the phone with Liberal HQ imploring them to have Dalton McGuinty take part in more debates.

Or maybe this isn’t really about wanting more policy debate. Maybe all you really want is for journalists to get tougher on the NDP because the red team is worried about polls showing the NDP’s fortunes are on the rise.

To your point about the importance of policy in election campaigns. I had lunch this weekend with a friend who’s working on the New Democrat campaign. I asked him about the NDP's rising support, about the Liberal attacks that were no doubt on the way, and how New Democrats would react to all the additional scrutiny.

His response?

Bring it on.

His reasoning?

The less the campaign focuses on name-calling, attacks and fear-mongering, and the more this campaign focuses on the party leaders and their plans, the better it is for voters, and the better it is for New Democrats.

You raised the issue of health care. I’ve read the NDP plan (http://ontariondp.com/en/policy). It’s a thoughtful approach. It aims to tackle the challenges of our ageing population by making smart investments in home care, long-term care and community-based supports. This will help more people stay healthy, in their homes, out of hospital emergency rooms.

Tommy Douglas, the former NDP Leader and public health care pioneer, often spoke of the second stage of Medicare - keeping people healthy, not waiting until they get sick. That’s how the New Democrats have positioned their health care policy.

I have no doubt New Democrats welcome the contrast between their leader and her plan and McGuinty’s health care record of clogged emergency rooms, cuts to healthy baby programs, and long waits for home care and long-term care.

Tell me you can help arrange more leaders’ debates so we can have more policy talk!

 

The Daily Exchange: The sad state of the Twitter campaign

So far, we Daily Exchangers have been focused on the actual election campaign. We’ve been talking about the leaders, the platforms, the TV ads, the negative attacks and the name-calling. I’m not sure if we have talked about journalists on the tours and how they have complained about their food and accommodation. Erika - maybe you can lead off on that tomorrow.  

One thing I'm sure we haven’t talked about yet is the shadow election that’s happening at the same time as this actual election.

I'm talking about the Twitter election.

The experts say - and I tend agree with them - that social media has much promise. It can break down barriers, help leaders and parties connect with millions of voters, and usher in a new golden age of digital democracy, all in 140 characters or less.

So how is that working out here in Ontario?

Two words: Hashtag. Fail.

It’s difficult to find the words to describe just how awful it is out there in the Ontario election world of #onpoli, #voteon, @fake[insert_candidate_name] and partisan spambots.

Every now and then, if you look really hard, you can spot interesting, constructive discussion. But for the most part, there are only two things happening out there in the Twitter-verse.

First, you’ve got hyper-partisan committed voters SHOUTING AT THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENTS, because insults and putdowns are awesome.

Second, you’ve got savvy media relations outfits engaged in some ultra-sophisticated strategy. Try to trick media into thinking your team has the Big Mo by getting political staffers to regurgitate canned party talking points over, and over, and over. Because nothing's more compelling than cut-and-paste talking points. That’s the kind of intelligent campaigning that’s bound to influence hard-nosed reporters like @rjbrennan.

Seriously, the Twitter election is like nails on a chalkboard. It's like Dante’s fifth circle of hell. It's like Screech from Saved by the Bell. All rolled up into one. It's awful, awful, awful.

What's a campaign manager to do? Here’s my advice.

1. Invite supporters to take a break from the Internet and talk to some actual voters. There are things to learn and votes to earn on the doorsteps. Andrea Horwath broke out of her bubble and mainstreeted with voters yesterday in Toronto and Ottawa. So it can be done.

2. Get out and debate. This time, in this election, a Twitter debate consisting of canned talking points and negative attacks isn't good enough. Ontario has been through some tough times these last few years. We’re facing some big challenges. So let's get leaders out of their bubbles, get them in front of voters and let’s have an exchange of ideas.

3. Try to raise the bar. As I said earlier, Twitter has great possibilities. And despite everything I've said, there is no denying there are many, many good people on Twitter having a lot of good and interesting conversations. Twitter doesn’t have to be a social media distraction factory (props to @greg_elmer). It can be a positive tool that helps voters connect with campaigns and each other. It can help voters make an informed choice on election day. But for that to happen, leaders and parties are going to have to show some leadership. They're going to have to say no to the status quo, and say yes to doing things differently. If that happened, heck, we’d all be #winning.

- Jeffrey Ferrier, former communications director for the Ontario NDP

 

Response from Erika Mozes, former senior adviser to George Smitherman and Gerard Kennedy:

Social media may be adding a new element to campaigns, but it does not supersede traditional campaigning.

It's easy to whip out your smartphone and type in a short message to your followers. I've done it while knocking on doors, attending a rally, and on my way to parts of the province to campaign (which helped me recruit more people to canvass with my team in one case last weekend). It's an enhancement to the campaign, not a substitute.

But, like Jeff, I have had some observations about #voteon and #onpoli.

Twitter makes it easy for people to comment under the cover of darkness. Since I started my Twitter account over a year and a half ago I have been subject to some nasty unnamed source attacks based on my political affiliation. It makes it easier to attack since anyone can make up a fake account and hide behind it. But does this affect "regular" voters? No. I don't think they are following my feed.

As has been argued by social media experts, Twitter has made the back rooms more visible. Instead of political hacks spinning reporters and influential thirds parties "back rooms," they are doing it online, where anyone with a twitter handle can see. It can be fascinating. You can easily track what the message of the day is from any party by following their spokespeople.

But despite those that think they are masterminds for making up fake twitter accounts, reporters are able to see through the games. They may have been fooled by Rob Ford's campaign manager's fake account (seriously, did people really think one twitter account translated to 100,000 votes?) but Twitter is now a stable in campaigns, and reporters aren't really that easily fooled.

Let's be frank. The majority of people that post and follow #voteon and #onpoli have their minds made up on how they are voting. It is a tool that can be used for breaking news, reaching voters that may not be reachable in other ways, and yes, I think for pulling the vote on election day, but the debate that is happening on these hash tags is mainly between partisans looking to score easy points.

I like Jeff's idealism that the Twitter election can one day be used only for good, not for rants and attacks.  But, the truth is, a lot of the negative actions are being taken by fake accounts or by people not directly affiliated with the campaigns.

I'm not a believer that hyper-partisanship will sway voters on Twitter. I am, however, a believer that a Twitter message sent from an MPP, a candidate, or a leader of a party to an "average voter" on Twitter can be really cool. Twitter has a place in elections, just beware of believing everything you read and hear on the site.

 

Response from Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris and Stephen Harper:

If social media are not being utilized to full potential in this campaign, the political parties are partly responsible.

And the criticism is not limited to social media. It fairly extends to all digital media.

An estimated 79 per cent of Canadian households have access to the Internet (2010 estimate, http://ow.ly/6zSmV). Seven of every ten adults (not to mention nine teenagers in ten) have participated in online social media and three-quarters of teens have used instant messaging (2008 figures, http://ow.ly/6zSI9).

Tim Hudak's town halls, pioneered by Rob Ford, are still novel. Kudos to him for engaging tens of thousands of voters this way. It's a clever use of technology ... but it's telephone technology, not an example of exploiting new media.

Don't get me wrong. All the leaders are on Twitter. And it's nice to know they all had a good time at the International Plowing Match. But 140-character travelogues fall short of using the medium to move hearts and minds.

Similarly, all the leaders are on Facebook. And Tim Hudak is cleaning up in the race to have users "like" him or his page: As of this afternoon, 17,982 for Hudak (http://on.fb.me/cyWvpN), 8,041 for Dalton McGuinty (http://on.fb.me/pgqF9B) and 5,339 for Andrea Horwath (http://on.fb.me/pCjoym). But those numbers pale when compared to the 8 million registered voters. And collecting Facebook "likes" can hardly be considering harnessing the full power of social media.

Then there are the websites. I conducted my own experiment, using the three issues of greatest public concern according to a recent poll (http://bit.ly/n1z6YU). I went to each website, and tried to determine how quickly an undecided voter could learn the party's plan for health care, the economy and taxes.

The Liberal website is best at communicating only what the party wishes to discuss, and therefore the worst at letting users research issues of their choosing. There is no menu of policies or topics - just PDFs of the platform (albeit in two dozen languages).

The PC website presents detailed information under its "Issues" tab, but there's a design limitation: nothing tells users they need to scroll down to read about their chosen topic, leaving the impression that nothing happens when you click on a topic link: http://bit.ly/nifBCv. Video footage has Mr. Hudak talking about each topic area, but extra effort is required of users who favour the traditional method of collecting information (reading).

The NDP website suffers from the same limitation (see http://bit.ly/kD86TS), plus it lacks a topic menu. There's just a one page summary of the platform under seven topical headings.

The bottom line: Ontario's political parties have entered the digital age, but they could be doing so much more.

The Daily Exchange: How effective is campaign advertising?

The impact of advertising on this campaign is still unknown, but may well be significant.

The PCs are trying to accomplish several objectives with a relatively limited ad budget: introducing the leader, promoting their agenda and (by highlighting Mr. McGuinty’s record) making the case for change.

Striving for a distinct look and feel (an entirely legitimate objective), the provincial PCs have assembled an advertising group entirely different from the team that scripted the federal Conservatives’ election and pre-election ads. Truth be told, no two campaigns are alike.

The Liberals, on the other hand, are not running aggressive contrast ads against their opponents. (I’m not counting the new Horwath-equals-Hudak ad, which I don’t take seriously.)

The Liberals can afford to focus on positive ads because a third-party group, the so-called Working Families Coalition, is waging a sustained (albeit very misleading) attack on Mr. Hudak.

Under Ontario law, third-party advertising expenses must be recorded and reported, but total spending is unlimited.

Thus, while the PC Party’s central campaign is limited to spending roughly $6.5 million (74 cents times the number of electors; the preliminary list contains 8.76 million names), third parties can advertise against Mr. Hudak free of spending limits.

The Supreme Court says spending limits are based on the theory that wealth is the main obstacle to equal participation in election campaigns and the wealthy should be “prevented from controlling the electoral process to the detriment of others with less economic power.” (http://ow.ly/6xTJZ para. 62)

Whether one agrees or disagrees with it, this is the theory on which the law is based. How odd, therefore, that Ontario law permits corporate and union interests (in this particular case, unions) to spend unlimited wealth to influence the outcome of a provincial general election – especially when they spend to the detriment of a political party whose spending is capped.

The supposed principle is equal participation, but wealthy interest groups are clearly more equal than grassroots political parties.

During the 2007 general election campaign the Working Families Coalition spent $1 million on advertising (http://ow.ly/6xST9). The frequency with which their commercials appear suggests a much heavier buy this time.

In the face of potentially unlimited anti-PC advertising, it hardly seems fair that the PC Party’s ability to defend itself is curtailed by law.

- Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris and Stephen Harper

 

Response from Erika Mozes, former senior adviser to George Smitherman and Gerard Kennedy:

Campaign advertisements have a demonstrable effect on the electorate. Political parties, pundits, academics, back room organizers, and yes, interest groups, are well aware of the effect advertisements can have on voters.

What is important is disclosure of who is paying for them. And disclosure is happening: whether it by the Elementary Teachers Federation, the Working Families Coalition, the business that owns the Ambassador Bridge linking Windsor and Detroit, or “People for a Better Ontario” (the conservative version of the Working Families Coalition which seems to have been a flop).

So let me bring up what I think is a more important debate than who is paying for what advertisements.

Eight years ago Ontarians could not count on their health care system.

The previous government closed 28 hospitals, the NDP’s wrongheaded decision to cut medical school spaces in the early 1990’s created a crisis with doctor shortages, emergency rooms on Toronto’s university row had to shut their doors to patients, and local decision making took a backseat to dangerous health care consolidation decisions. 

Today, the Premier was at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario taking about newborn screening which now covers 28 rare disorders – up from two. He reminded voters in Eastern Ontario that under the previous government the hospital’s heart surgery unit closed – making children who needed surgery have to make the dangerous trip to Toronto. (A perfect example of the consolidation decisions I mentioned above).

Health care continues to be a top three issue on the minds of voters. Yet it has barely been discussed in this campaign. 

At a time where Conservative leadership hopefuls in Alberta are talking about infusion of private delivery and how the Federal Health Accord needs to be renegotiated, Ontarians need to have a frank discussion about the future of their health care system. The Ontario Liberal party is the only party that has presented a health care plan that will recognize that costs need to be managed, but not at the expense of life saving services. 

This debate is important for all Ontarians. We have an aging population, skyrocketing costs, and a generation we now call the “sandwich generation” who are caring for their parents and their own children. We need to talk about health care and how we are going to sustain the system. 

(I will continue this discussion mid-week).

 

Response from Jeffrey Ferrier, former communications director for the Ontario NDP:

Guy’s question was about television advertising and fairness in elections, so I’m going to give him a straight answer.

I am troubled by the direction Ontario politics is headed. I think it is too self-serving. I think it is too negative. And I think everyone involved needs to take a good hard look at what they’re doing, and ask themselves if we really want to continue down this road. Because if that’s where we’re headed, we’re not going to like where we end up.

I think political parties are at their best when they give voters something to vote for, not just something to vote against.

I’ve heard from the political ad gurus who say negative advertising is good, that it’s healthy for democracy, and by golly it’s something that anyone who aspires to higher office absolutely needs to do.

It’s a seductive argument. At one point, I saw merit in the position. Win at all costs is a good thing, right?

But over time, as I’ve stepped away from the political game, and become a parent, and faced up to the fact that I need to explain my actions to my kids, I have concluded that I was wrong to believe negative campaigning is a positive thing.

At the outset of this campaign, I spoke about being hopeful that all three leaders and all three parties would recommit to some civility in politics.

How have the parties done? It’s been a mixed bag from the Liberals and the PCs.

On McGuinty: He has put out some positive TV ads squarely focused on what he’s done as premier. At the same time, he’s put out negative TV ads attacking Hudak. He is avoiding debates. He has given free rein to a war room that’s doing everything but raising the level of debate. Heck, he’s even attacking the record of the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Go figure.

On Hudak: He has put out some positive TV ads of his own, focused on introducing himself to voters. He has also agreed to take part in the Northern Ontario debate. But like McGuinty, he’s flooding the airwaves with name-calling attack ads. His early-campaign attacks on new Canadians were similarly negative and divisive.

Of the three party leaders, only Andrea Horwath is doing things differently. She is running a positive campaign. She is speaking about her plans to create new jobs and make life more affordable for Ontarians. She is calling for more debates. She is meeting with real voters. And her TV ads? They’re positive. All of them. That includes her latest “Shoes” ad, which is quite funny and well worth watching.

Back to Guy’s original question. Should we review election advertising rules after this campaign, to see if we can do things better? Absolutely we should.

But there’s something more important than that they everyone involved needs to do:

Ask yourself if you can justify your behaviour to your children and grandchildren. Ask yourself if they would get sent to the principal’s office for doing the kind of things you’re doing. And if you don’t like the answers, change your ways and do better.

 

The Daily Exchange: Can you beat somebody with nobody?

“You can’t beat somebody with nobody” is one of my favourite political clichés.

In my opinion, the biggest challenge facing both Tim Hudak and Andrea Horwath is that they are “nobodies” to a large number of Ontarians. 

When this election started, one polling firm found that approximately 40 per cent of respondents could not identify Hudak. A poll by Nanos Research released last week found that 55.9 per cent of respondents could not describe Horwath in a single word. (The figure was 43 per cent for Hudak.)

These results reflect the inability of Hudak’s and Horwath’s Queen’s Park teams to introduce them broadly to Ontarians prior to the election. Indeed, more than a year after his June 2009 election as party Leader, Hudak was so unknown that the Star’s Robert Benzie dubbed him “Tim Who-dak?,” while noting the PCs were spending “a considerable amount” of money to change this. Given the awareness results above, a value-for-money audit may be in order.

Hudak is a smart operator, and knows that one of the best ways for a politician to get known is to latch on to and ride an issue or scandal. The scandal that enveloped e-Health Ontario was – or should have been – in his wheelhouse, and he tried to make the most of it. However, it’s now clear that, from a personal branding perspective at least, Hudak swung and missed on this file far too often. Worse, he didn’t give himself enough at-bats. He let his MPP critics carry the e-Health file outside of Question Period; as a result, they appeared in many of the associated media stories instead of him. This may have been a good caucus management tactic, but it cost him dearly in terms of developing a brand.

Horwath’s problems are slightly different. Despite her best efforts to be front and centre on major media issues at Queen’s Park, and notwithstanding the sterling quality of the NDP’s research department, the NDP often seemed to be reacting to stories focused on others. Put another way, while the PC’s “owned” the government scandals and waste files, it’s unclear what the topics the NDP owned.

Why does this matter? It matters because elections are inherently chaotic, and trying to make a first impression during one is a risky proposition. Just ask Dalton McGuinty. Elected Liberal leader in 1996 with the initial support of only one caucus colleague, McGuinty entered the 1999 election with 25 per cent of Ontarians not knowing a thing about him. Not surprisingly, McGuinty and his “deserved reputation for anonymity” were routed by Mike Harris.

The events of last week also illustrate the risks of in-election introductions. For many voters, the first thing they ever saw from Hudak was his attack on the “foreigners” tax credit. While this may have kept some doors and minds open to him, it certainly closed a lot of others. As for Horwath, she focused her time in Northern Ontario (and on the Northern media), and generally avoided last week’s most-talked about issue. Further, their parties’ platforms lack sufficient weight to capture the public’s awareness and offset their awareness challenges.

So, back to my cliché. Like him or not, Premier McGuinty is a “somebody.”  Although he may not be universally popular, he is a known quantity after 21 years as an MPP, 15 years as Liberal leader, and 8 years as premier. The Nanos poll I cited above found that only 2 out of 10 Ontarians could not describe him. This is a tremendous advantage, and nobody should underestimate its effect when voters mark their ballots.

All that said, there is still one big, all-in opportunity for Hudak and Horwath to introduce or reintroduce themselves to voters: the Leader’s debate. Given its importance to their chances, and its relative lateness in the campaign, it will be a make or break for both. Will Hudak be able to shake his newly-acquired “Angry Man” brand? Will Horwath succeed with solidifying her “Reasonable Teddy Bear With A Workable Plan” persona? Will either be able to lay a glove on “Premier Dad”? For their electoral sakes, they had better hope so.

- Erika Mozes, former senior adviser to George Smitherman and Gerard Kennedy

 

Response from Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris and Stephen Harper:

Erika makes a good point about name recognition.

It’s essential for a challenger to become known by the voters. It’s also essential for a challenger to define himself or herself – and this is best done early, lest one’s opponent fix the definition first.

I’ll return to that point in a moment.

Meanwhile, I agree that Dalton McGuinty possesses name recognition and is associated with the office of premier and that most voters have views about him.

These characteristics are usually true of an incumbent. They do not, however, always translate to victory.

Take the fact that voters associate the incumbent with his office. This gives an incumbent the edge when people are asked who is best suited for the office. But that does not assure the incumbent of victory. The “best premier” rating is typically a lagging indicator – it is one of the last numbers to slip after other metrics show voters changing their minds. Indeed, several incumbents have been defeated while still holding “best premier” designation in the polls.

Does it help to be the incumbent? Sometimes yes, but not when voters want change. It definitely doesn’t help to be an incumbent when the people demand change. Both the PC and NDP strategies hope to capitalize on the desire for change – in the case of the PCs, that means change away from broken promises and high taxes.

Which leads back to the question of defining oneself and one’s opponents.

It’s an understatement to say that Liberals’ branding of Tim Hudak has been unfocused, disorganized and incompetent. I lost count of the number of different Tim Hudak “narratives” the Liberal brain trust has tried to push over the last year: He has no experience. He has bad experience. He lacks ideas. He has the wrong ideas. Worry because he won’t do what he says. Worry because he will do what he says. He’s no Mike Harris. He’s too much like Mike Harris. On and on the inconsistencies went.

(As for this “Tea Party” stuff, do the Liberals seriously believe that the tireless efforts of one serial blogger constitute a proper branding campaign?)

Meanwhile, Tim Hudak was able to travel the province, getting coverage in regional and community news media, and defining himself as an agent of change.

To return to Erika’s argument: The incumbent premier is Dalton McGuinty and Ontarians certainly know that. We’ll soon see what the voters do about it.

 

Response from Jeffrey Ferrier, former communications director for the Ontario NDP:

As premier, Dalton McGuinty does have higher name recognition than his two opponents. That has its advantages. Some voters who know McGuinty see him as Premier Dad. They know about accomplishments like full-day kindergarten and they like what they see. It also has its disadvantages. Others know McGuinty more for his record. That includes presiding over the hollowing of Ontario’s manufacturing and resource economy, the loss of 300,000 good-paying jobs in those sectors, and sharp hikes to the cost of living.

Sometimes, higher name recognition benefits the incumbent. Mitchell Hepburn. Leslie Frost. Bill Davis. These are all long-serving premiers who benefited from incumbency and high name recognition. But there are no guarantees. Just ask Bob Rae.

What does this all mean for Tim Hudak and Andrea Horwath?

For starters, I think it’s a stretch to frame their lower name recognition as some kind of failure. It may come to a shock to Queen’s Park types, but the reality is that few people pay attention to provincial politics between elections. Want proof? Invite your friends over to dinner and regale them with stories about question period. Watch their eyes glaze over. Then you’ll know the truth about how tough it is to engage voters between elections.

Now, the election is on, and voters are paying attention. So how are Hudak and Horwath doing?

Hudak is having some difficulties. In person, he’s a gregarious, quite likeable guy. But that part of Hudak has been lost to the voters thus far. The PC leader has cut an angry image, especially during his nasty back-and-forth with the Liberals over immigration tax credits. More recently, the PCs seem to have hit the reset button, and they’re trying to introduce voters to the real Hudak. I think that’s a smart move on their part.

Horwath is having more success. She and her team are running an effective campaign. Horwath is getting her name and face out there, talking about the issues she wants to talk about, like jobs and affordability. She is coming across like the smart, competent leader she is. From what I hear from the NDP camp, they’re going to stay the course and keep the focus on their leader and her plan. They believe the more people get to know Horwath, the more they like her, something that portends well for them on October 6.

One final note. Erika, I know you led off with the “nobodies” comment in jest, but I do want to say something that I think we can all agree on. McGuinty, Horwath, and Hudak care deeply about Ontario, its people and its future. Each one has done something very noble in stepping forward to seek elected office and serve the people of this province. And in that respect, each one is indeed a somebody.

The Daily Exchange: Does the media put too much stock in polls?

Does polling figure too prominently in the media's coverage of elections?

It's a question I'm pondering this morning thanks to a remarkable campaign intervention by, of all people, a pollster. Darrell Bricker and John Wright, of Ipsos Reid, have taken the unusual step of issuing a news release outlining the problems with polls and journalists' coverage of polls in elections.

Their chief focus is accuracy. Their concern is that some of the newer methods pollsters use to gauge public opinion are flawed and generate results of questionable scientific value. Or, as they put it, how some pollsters are "hucksters selling methodological snake oil."

That got me to thinking about the bigger issue of whether our collective fascination with polls during elections is serves the public's interest.

Should we be so concerned about who's winning, or should our focus be on voters' choices?

For me, it's the latter.

I like a shiny new poll like any other political junkie. But elections are supposed to be about the voters, their needs and desires, and which party's leader and plan takes voters where they want to go.

But poll-focused coverage isn't about choices. It's about who's winning and who's losing. The result? It sidelines the real exchange of ideas and debate, and reduces the democratic process into just a big game.

Democracy is stronger when voters understand their choices. But poll-focused coverage reduces choice. By framing elections as a battle between establishment choice A and establishment choice B, it tells voters they only have two choices. That all others who seek to represent and serve the public are also-rans are unworthy of voters' consideration.

For voters, it's like going into Tim Hortons and asking the server what's the healthiest snack, and the server tell you that ice cappucinos and apple fritters are most popular, so pick one of them. But what if you want a multigrain bagel with light cream cheese? Sorry, that's not the most popular choice. Pick the ice capp or the doughnut already.

Limiting choices disrespects voters. Folks who cast their ballots have the right to choose who they want representing them and what direction they want their provincial government to pursue.

So how about some good news - because I like to try and keep things positive.

The provincial media are doing a pretty good job covering the issues. There's been a little too much focus on the Liberals' newcomer tax credit and the PC response for my liking. But overall, Star reporters and others have done a good job explaining where the parties stand on the issues, especially on the issues of jobs, the economy and the affordability of everyday life.

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath's call for more debate instead of the same-old political bickering is another positive development in this campaign. I am also encouraged to see Tim Hudak agree to take part in a debate focused on Northern issues. I hope Dalton McGuinty agrees too.

Maybe this call for a return to civility in politics will put an end to what Horwath cleverly dubbed groundhog politics. Pop out of your hole. Deliver talking point attacks. Then go back into your hole.

And now Bricker's and Wrights' comments might just prompt the media to think twice about focusing so much on polls and who's winning, and redouble their commitment to focus on the choices before the voters.

When campaigns focus on the choices before the voters, and voters understand the menu before them, we make better choices, and we all win.

- Jeffrey Ferrier, former communications director for the Ontario NDP

 

Response from Erika Mozes, former senior adviser to George Smitherman and Gerard Kennedy:

Yesterday I focused on polls and the media and how this can heavily influence voters. Today Jeff has brought up a few new concepts in that space that I would be happy to comment on. 

First he talks about poll accuracy: yes, the media and the general public do need to be concerned about how they interpret polls. This election already proves the point – depending on which pollster you ask the Ontario Liberals are either ahead, tied or losing support (I like to believe the first two are true). If the research and analysis course I took (yes, eight years ago) taught me anything it is that polls can be skewed to show different results. I am not implying that pollster are intentionally doing so (some of my best friends are pollsters!), but it is one way to interpret the wide range of results.

So yes, voters do need to be warned if they are voting solely on poll results.

Voter’s choice: Yesterday I argued that Ontarians are reading or watching media stories, and many alter their behaviour because of them. One person might be dispirited by the news of a bad poll and stop donating to the party that’s behind. Another might decide that their preferred party won’t win, and not vote at all. Others, who might not have had a clear preference before the election, might decide they want to be on the “winning team” and vote for the leading party. (We saw this in spades during Jack Layton’s NDP surge in the 2011 Federal Election.)

Voters are concerned with who is winning, and the media focuses on who is winning, because that is, put frankly, news - particularly in an election where the incumbent party was 10 points behind going into the race and is now tied (or ahead or behind depending on which pollster you believe). 

The issues: so far there have been two major issues in this election – the new Canadian tax credit and the PC’s reaction to it, and the economy. (The NDP may want debates to be an issue, but I don’t see it catching on like wildfire with the electorate). 

The polls are showing, and the media are reporting, on the Ontario Liberal Party and the PC’s more than the NDP because on the pertinent issues they are dominating the discussion.  The NDP party wants to raise corporate taxes, bring in protectionist policies, freeze gas and transit prices (while building more) and halt future nuclear generation – not exactly an economic friendly platform...and they stayed above the frey on the new Canadian tax credit.

My point being, polls results have, in my opinion, been influenced by the policy debate so far. So I don’t believe the argument that choices have been limited by publication and focus on poll results, because the polls results are reflecting the policy debate. This is a good thing.

I agree that voters have to focus on the choices before them and make the right choice for what they feel is important for the next four years. I would argue it should be the economy moving forward and the future and protection of core social services like health care and education. But then remember, I am a Liberal, and we may be ahead, tied or behind in the polls.

 

Response from Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris and Stephen Harper:

I agree with Jeff. And with Darrel Bricker and John Wright.

Voters have limited sources of information during campaigns. Short of conducting their own research (on the Internet or otherwise), citizens must rely on candidates' canvass and literature, on paid political advertising and on news coverage of the campaign.

Indeed, media coverage is a primary source of voter information prior to the most important decision a citizen can make. When the media coverage conveys substance, voters are better informed. When the media talk about process issues, voters are deprived of an opportunity to learn more before casting a ballot.

We are privileged in this country to enjoy a free press. The news media are free to report what they want. As they should be. No one should compel the news media to report a certain way. Their freedom is essential to our democracy.

That said, when the news media use their freedom to ignore the substance of what the candidates are saying, and choose instead to focus on polling or the "horse race" aspects of the election, it is not just the politicians who suffer. Voters miss out too.

Every day, each party leader delivers a carefully chosen message of substance. Each day, he or she has pretty much one chance to have that message covered on the nightly TV news. If the leader's substantive message is lost amid alternative news coverage ("today leader X was forced to respond to the latest poll results") then the people will receive that much less information and will be that much less informed about where the parties stand.

I think we'd all agree that where the parties stand on the issues is more important than where the parties stand in the latest survey.

Many reporters will argue that it's their job to provide analysis and insight, not just to report the politicians' positions. "We're not stenographers," I heard one prominent print and radio journalist say earlier today. What he meant was that reporters aren't doing their jobs when they just repeat what the politicians say.

It's true that reporters are not stenographers and it's true that the voters benefit from the insight and analysis of a free press. At the same time, the voters also benefit from hearing the politicians' messages, unedited and unfiltered, so they (the voters) can form their own conclusions.

The proliferation of polls is one reason we have less news coverage of issues, policy and substance, and more obsession with process.

In the end, the voters are the ones who lose.

The Daily Exchange: Do election campaigns actually matter?

For years political scientists claimed that election campaigns don't matter – that is, that campaigns have no impact on election results.

Their position defied experience and common sense. After all, if campaigns do not matter, then how do we explain mid-campaign vote swings, such as the Liberals' collapse at the feet of Jack Layton's NDP (2011 federal election) or the unexpected defeat of David Peterson (1990 provincial election)?

In the face of evidence, even political scientists are coming around to the view that campaigns matter, at least sometimes.

It’s in this context that one should examine the recently released opinion polls. Anything can happen in a campaign, and frequently does.

How should the parties react? Not at all, to published polls.

The reason is that political parties don’t rely (or shouldn’t rely) on publicly-published poll results.

Each party has its own pollster, typically independent of the campaign to ensure that the leader and campaign management receive objective analysis. A party collects its own data, based on consistent survey questions and measured against benchmarks that are meaningful to the party, and relies on those results to determine and assess strategy.

Numbers from two surveys, using different designs, questions and methodologies, are not directly comparable.

Moreover, each party’s data should be fresher than results reported in the media. What’s reported in the news reflects a few days’ lag, while each provincial campaign manager will have access to data collected the night before.

That’s not to say the published polls are completely ignored. A party should look to the newspaper polls to ensure that its internal data make sense and significant shifts or trends are not being missed. (When internal polling differs markedly from external polling, a campaign must be satisfied it can account for the discrepancy.)

Of course, candidates and volunteers in the field, and reporters covering the campaign, don’t have access to a party’s internal polling. They must rely on what’s heard and read in the news. Consequently, published poll results can affect the “three M’s” of morale, media coverage and momentum.

I’ll continue the analysis tomorrow.

- Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris and Stephen Harper

 

Response from Erika Mozes, former senior adviser to George Smitherman and Gerard Kennedy:

Guy is right about one thing: campaigns do matter.

During campaigns, key events or moments – good, bad, and ugly – happen. It’s when “ordinary” Ontarians (as I defined in my last post) pay even closer attention to political party policy positions, and the quality and tone of their leaders. Importantly, they get information about all of this from the media, a fact I’ll focus on in this posting.

Notwithstanding the talk about social media, the most influential political reporting in Ontario is still done by reporters at “old media” outlets. Reporters – particularly print reporters – create and filter the majority of information we receive about politics and politicians.

Reporters love opinion polls – particularly the “horserace” polls that talk about party standings, rather than issues. Horserace polls can have a profound effect on campaigns, because momentum – real or perceived – interests the reporters who cover politics. That’s why polls, particularly bad ones, can take on a life of their own.

A story about a bad poll for “Party A” prompts reporters to ask Party A’s leader for their reaction to the poll instead of about policy. The eader’s answer results in another a story about the poll, then another story about “Party B’s" leader's take on it, then another about whether a particular tactic deployed by Party A failed or succeeded.

Politicians hate talking about this stuff. And once the process story spiral starts, it’s very difficult for a leader down in the polls to stop it and get back on message. Exhibit A is Tim Hudak, who hasn’t seen a story that didn’t include the phrases “foreign worker ” and “falling in the polls” for almost a week.

All the while, Ontarians are reading or watching media stories, and many alter their behaviour because of them.

With all this in mind, it’s clear that this week’s public polls are a gut-punch to Hudak’s Tories and a much-needed morale booster for the Ontario Liberals who, only a few months back, had been all but written off. To me, these polls confirm the projections of Ontario Liberal Party’s campaign pollsters: a third McGuinty mandate is in the making. And that’s why the Premier has a noticeable spring in his step.

That said, this campaign is far from over. The Ontario Liberals have to fight off distractions and continue talking about the things they are strong on, like getting results and pocketbook issues. We saw a great example of this with the Premier’s assault on the effect of Hudak’s plans on municipal property taxes today in Ottawa.

The Tories and NDP are quite capable of finding a way to change the channel to an issue they are strong on, and shift the momentum back. But for now, I’m certain that the Ontario Liberals are happy with where they are at this point in the campaign, and enjoying the benefits that accrue from being there.

The Daily Exchange: Why Dalton McGuinty will win the election

As a good federal Liberal, what follows hurts me to write, but it will hurt Guy more to read: Dalton McGuinty will win this election because he - and not Tim Hudak - will get the votes of tens of thousands of Ontarians who supported Stephen Harper in May.

Remember the launch of Hudak's "changebook" platform earlier this year? At that time, media and pundits remarked about how the rebranded, centrist PC party now had few major policy differences with the governing Liberals, and even - astonishingly - the NDP. Core conservative policies, to the extent they appear in changebook, had been pushed to the margins (think chain gangs).

For some reason, Hudak's campaign has started walking away from their centrist branding. Why? I don't have an answer, beyond deducing that the PCs' in-writ strategy is based on a false premise - that the “ordinary" Ontario voter is at core a right-winger, part of their base, and will respond positively when hot-buttons are pushed. If I'm right, then the PC strategists have misread why and when Ontarians elect conservatives.

Here's a little secret: The majority of Ontarians are "Red Tories." My old political science textbooks describe this group as “socially responsible but fiscally conservative." (I would add to this "they don't support wacky schemes," like private school tax credits, which is why they kept John Tory out of the Premier's Office in 2007.) Since the writ dropped, Hudak's campaign has offered nothing that would compel Red Tories to vote for the PCs, in spite of the fact that Red Tories paved the road to victory for Jean Chretien, Mike Harris, Dalton McGuinty, Paul Martin, Stephen Harper and, yes, Rob Ford.

Now, this may be because many Ontario PC strategists don't believe Red Tories exist or that, if they do exist, that they matter. They are wrong.

Ontario's Red Tories put - and kept - Jean Chretien in office during his budget-cutting days. In the extraordinary 1995 provincial election, they took a risk on hard-right Mike Harris. They flocked to centrist Dalton McGuinty in 2003, and only abandoned Paul Martin when they thought he had lost the plot on spending. They were targeted by Stephen Harper in the 2006 campaign, helped him survive in 2008, and finally gave him his coveted majority earlier this year.

These leaders won elections in Ontario because they appealed to voters' Red Tory instincts - not because they were Ronald Reagan clones.

If history tells us anything then, it's that, far from being a niche group, Red Tories are actually the "ordinary voters" campaign strategists talk about and lust for. For some reason, PC strategists like Guy haven't accepted this.

For them, "ordinary voters" are Tim Horton's-munching, Labatt 50-swilling knuckleheads who never watch "Meet The Press," couldn't care less about current affairs, and have no idea who, what or where the Tea Party is (even though they supposedly lean right). This view is both wrong and a disservice to Ontarians, who are among the most outward-facing, engaged people on Earth.

Ordinary Ontario voters are kind and sophisticated, and will find Hudak’s recent characterization of their neighbours as “foreigners" offensive. Although they'd appreciate tax relief, they don't want it at the expense of the public services they use and like. They know exactly who and what the Tea Party is, and they can see right through the fuzzy changebook promises and slick branding. And, they will vote accordingly, and overwhelm the small number of Ontarians who resemble Guy's "ordinary voter" caricature.

Barring something extraordinary, it's pretty obvious who ordinary/Red Tory voters will support in this election. As they have done before, they will cast their ballot for the leader with the authentic, centrist plan that is best aligned with how they see the world and live their lives. Because of Tim Hudak's 11th-hour lurch to the right, only Dalton McGuinty fits that bill.

- Erika Mozes, former senior adviser to George Smitherman and Gerard Kennedy

 

Response from Jeffrey Ferrier, former communications director for the Ontario NDP: 

Urgent news flash to the campaigns: Get your buses off the road. Call off your candidates. Shut down the campaign HQs. Bring your leaders home.

The election campaign is over … because the Liberals say it is over.

Here we go again. Team McGuinty is back at it, telling everyone that Liberals are entitled to the votes of Ontarians who don’t support the PCs. That voters don’t have a choice in this election. That ordinary folks must vote Liberal, no matter what.

Here’s the reality. Voters do have choices in this election. The Liberals’ failure to acknowledge this, as they have done in election after election after election, shows disrespect to voters and the democratic process. It is also one of the least attractive parts of the Liberal brand federally or provincially.

So what’s going on here?

This is a Liberal power play. The aim is to marginalize Andrea Horwath, knock New Democrats out of the election and ride a wave of centre-left swing voters straight to the Premier’s office.

The Liberals have done the same thing in election after election after election with some success.

Will it work this time?

So far, it hasn’t. The latest public domain polls show support for Horwath and the NDP continues to grow too. Support for the NDP is in the mid-20s and trending higher.

So why isn’t the Liberal entitlement march working this time? Part of the problem for the Liberals is they aren’t running against a New Democrat team that’s hobbled by the legacy of Bob Rae. I won’t go into details about the legacy now, but if you want to find out more about the man and what he’s up to these days, please visit www.liberal.ca/bob-rae.

McGuinty’s other problem is that he’s running against a New Democrat leader and team offering voters a real, positive choice – change that makes life more affordable by taking HST off essentials, change that creates jobs by rewarding businesses who create jobs for any Ontarian who’s out of work, change that puts people first. This is a powerful reason for voters to come over to Horwath. So far, that's exactly what many voters are doing.

Follow-up news flash to the campaigns: Get back to work. The campaign is wide open. And there’s still a long way to go.

PS: There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Labatt 50. It’s made in Canada. It tastes great. And when you bring it to a party, you don’t have to worry about someone swiping it on you.

 

Response from Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris and Stephen Harper:

Right, Jeff. The election is over because the Liberal brain trust has so decreed.

And apparently it’s all because Stephen Harper is more of a “red Tory” than John Tory … Oh, darn. I’ve lost the thread of Erika’s argument.

What I do know is that this election – just as every election – will be decided by ordinary people. 

It’s not surprising that the Liberals feel most in tune with the concerns of ordinary voters. All parties think that of themselves. Ever heard a political strategist admit that his or her party is elitist and out of touch?

Erika says ordinary voters are red Tories. This comment misses the point of what makes an ordinary voter. By and large, most ordinary people don’t classify themselves by attachment to a particular branch of a political party, or to a particular political philosophy.

You see, you can’t categorize ordinary voters the way you would label delegates to a party convention.

How did I describe ordinary voters? Accurately.

Sept. 6, I referred to “ordinary families” as “people who work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules.”

Then (Sept. 8) I wrote about “ordinary voters like the one million Ontarians without access to a family doctor.”

But what seems to have triggered the outburst was my Sept. 9 observation that, “Ordinary Ontarians don’t watch Meet the Press. They don’t hang on every development in U.S. politics. Michele Bachmann and Dennis Kucinich aren’t household names in mainstream Ontario.”

I stand by that description. This issue is not sophistication but priorities. Ordinary voters are too busy with work, family and community to obsess like political junkies … or talk like junkies. In all my years watching focus groups, not once have I heard someone call for a “leader with the authentic, centrist plan that is best aligned with how [we] see the world and live [our] lives.”

I don’t think the election is over yet, any more than it was at the same point during the recent federal campaign, when the Liberals held a 10+-point lead over Jack Layton’s New Democrats.

Why not more provincial leaders debates?

Why is there only going to be one provincial leaders debate?

Leaders debates are important moments in election campaigns. They give voters the opportunity to hear from the would-be premiers about the future of our province, unfiltered.

Both Dalton McGuinty and Tim Hudak strike me as good and decent men who are in politics for the right reasons. They care deeply about Ontario, and they want to make it a better and more prosperous province for us all.

You would think these two gentlemen would relish the chance to have more debates.

So what’s stopping them?

It’s not voters. Ontarians are concerned about jobs, health care and the rising cost of living at a time when six in 10 Ontarians are living paycheque to paycheque. Voters would welcome the chance to hear directly from the party leaders about their plans for these and other issues.

It’s not the media. The broadcast consortium is hosting one debate. But other media would jump at the chance to host a debate too.

It’s not New Democrats. Before the campaign started, Andrea Horwath invited McGuinty and Hudak to join her in a series of debates. “I’ve never heard a voter complain there were too many debates or too many chances to hear ideas exchanged,” Horwath says.

So where does that leave us?

My best guess is that it’s the backroom strategists.

You’ve got Liberals telling McGuinty: “Dalton, you’re the incumbent. Stick to one debate. More debates are not in your best interest. Better to let the war room unleash some nasty attacks.”

And you’ve got PCs telling Hudak: “More debates are too risky. It’s not in your best interest. Better to blow the bank on negative TV ads and see where the chips fall. “

And McGuinty and Hudak, disappointingly, are toeing the line. Instead of standing up and doing what’s right, they’re allowing themselves to be prisoners to their parties’ obsession with being in power, no matter the cost.

It shows little respect for voters to allow them to see only one face-to-face encounter before they decide how to vote.

What do you think it would take to get McGuinty and Hudak to do what's in Ontarians’ best interest, and accept Horwath’s invitation to take part in more leaders debates?

- Jeffrey Ferrier, former communications director for the Ontario NDP

Response from Erika Mozes, former senior adviser to George Smitherman and Gerard Kennedy: 

The Ontario election is already proving to garner healthy debate. 

Week One and the Ontario election is in the forefront of the press – a considerable feat in a week where kids were back to school, there was the 10^th anniversary of 9/11, and TIFF to distract the public. Mind you the debate may not be the issue that backroom liberal strategists dreamed of (education) but it is a debate nonetheless. 

The New Democratic Party is calling for additional televised debates because their leader, Andrea Horwath, does not have adequate profile. The NDP has been relegated to the sidelines; they seek to turn the channel.

The Liberals shouldn’t be concerned in having a debate over debates.

Not because they want to unleash attack, as Jeff describes, but because they should be out meeting voters, garnering support, talking about local issues, supporting local candidates. In fact, the Liberal campaign has been very positive in this first week focusing on their record and where they want to bring the Province.

Provincewide televised debates do not touch voters the way traditional campaigning does. Moreover in a time where broadcasters are competing with a multitude of channels and distractions I wonder what the appetite of the electorate for another televised debate would be. I’d say that is likely why the consortium only wants to host one.

Premier McGuinty has no reason to run away from a debate. In 2003 and in 2007 he out-performed his competitors and his numbers increased. Further, in a debate he has the opportunity to use his biggest card: his Premier-esque persona. While Andrea and Tim still look like the Premier’s unemployed siblings, the Premier looks, acts, and talks like a Premier.

The City of Toronto municipal election had over 100 debates. I attended over 60 of them. In those 60 debates I did not hear candidates deviate from their campaign messages (and yes, I heard the words “gravy” and “train” more than I would like to remember). 

I think the NDP should be more concerned with promoting the existing leaders debate, and preparing their leader for a lively discussion, than trying to wedge more debates in.

 

Response from Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris and Stephen Harper:

Jeff used the correct adjective to describe the most important aspect of the leaders’ debate: unfiltered.

Except for the tiny minority of Ontarians who will hear a leader speak in person, the debate is almost the only opportunity for voters to see and hear the party leaders unfiltered, unedited, and speaking for longer than newscast sound bites.

Pundits and reporters too often treat the debate like a boxing match. Who won and who lost? Was the match decided on points or by a knockout?

That’s entirely the wrong framework for evaluating the debate.

“Winning” and “losing” gauge the interaction among the candidates. Their interaction is secondary to the interaction between each candidate and the voters.

That’s why talk of knockout blows is often overrated and almost always misunderstood. What two candidates hear from each other is less meaningful than what the home audience takes away from the exchange.

That home audience is big. During the recent federal election campaign, an estimated four million voters watched the televised leaders’ debates.

Why then, do leaders tend to focus on the journalists and other politicians on the platform? Accessible votes aren’t in the TV studio. They are in Ontario living rooms.

This is the best, perhaps their only, opportunity of the campaign to converse directly with Ontarians, not in sound bites but in complete sentences. The successful candidate is the one who connects with the voters at home and cleanly delivers his or her message.

Accessible voters need to see what each leader is really all about. The debate allows him or her to look through the camera (eye contact is important) and speak directly to those ordinary Ontarians.

Typical backroom strategists usually focus more on the debate than the direct dialogue with voters. They do their candidates a disservice.

The Daily Exchange: Will "Tea Party" comparison resonate with voters?

Elections are debated by political junkies, but decided by ordinary voters. Political junkies themselves, campaign operatives sometimes forget the audience.

Consider the Liberals' Tea Party obsession. Liberal spokespeople constantly label the PC leader and candidates as Tea Party lookalikes or wannabes. Liberal missives and messages use the Tea Party epithet almost as often as they push the foreign-worker policy. Dalton McGuinty did both, comparing Tim Hudak to the Tea Party while defending affirmative action for foreign workers.

Most political junkies have views on the "Tea Party." But few junkies are undecided. Conversely, ordinary voters aren't moved by the Tea-Party-tirade.

The Liberal brain trust assumes "Tea Party" is commonly understood – not among politicos and downtown elites, but among ordinary people – to be synonymous with extreme, unpalatable views. That may be true in elite jargon, but not mainstream Ontario discourse.

Ordinary Ontarians don't watch Meet the Press. They don't hang on every development in U.S. politics. Michele Bachmann and Dennis Kucinich aren't household names in mainstream Ontario.

Ordinary Ontarians don't respond viscerally on hearing "Tea Party" because it's not relevant to them.

My son is reading a series of books written in the voice of a hamster who cringes at the thought of a cat. The narrator's terror amuses young readers, because they don't experience cats the way rodents do. For the hamster, the word "cat" is laden with emotion; not so for grade schoolers.

Similarly, "Tea Party" doesn't carry emotional weight with ordinary voters the way it affects the political junkies running the McGuinty campaign.

One Liberal mastermind keeps repeating "teabag" and "teabagger" – more insider jargon meaningless to mainstream voters.

Ontarians who barely think about the Tea Party won't respond emotionally to "teabag." Conversely, every Ontarian who associates "teabag" with "Tea Party" is already decided in this election. Guaranteed.

Will Liberal insiders stop bleating "Tea Party" and start speaking to ordinary people? Like hamsters writing about cats, they can't resist instinct.

- Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris and Stephen Harper

 

Response from Erika Mozes, former senior adviser to George Smitherman and Gerard Kennedy:

Ordinary voters do decide the outcomes of elections.

Guy's piece points to a significant change that has been occurring in election campaigns in Canada. He describes it in one manner - but allow me to argue the alternative, the dumbing down of our political discourse.

I worked on the City of Toronto mayoral campaign (a losing battle). I witnessed a shift in political communications. Repeat a populist message over and over which resonates and the "ordinary voter" will vote for you. I'd argue that both Stephen Harper successfully, and Tim Hudak currently, are using this model of populist communications.

Guy talks about ordinary voters and how they don't resonate with the "tea party" brand because they don't watch meet the press and aren't "downtown elites." These comments discredit Ontarians. It writes off a whole swath of the population because of a geographic area, and assumes that "ordinary voters" do not follow current events. Regardless, the whole premise of the "tea party" in the US are "ordinary people" who are organizing themselves on the right side of the political spectrum.

Why are the Liberals using the line? The "tea party" movement is associated with right wing politics, which is what the Liberals want voters to think about while considering their vote. Do you want a check on Stephen Harper and Rob Ford, or do you want a trifecta of blue power.

As for the "foreign-worker" policy let me clarify, the tax credit being referenced is for Canadian citizens. Tim Hudak calls new Canadians "foreign" in this regard – Liberals consider them Canadians. The ratio of foreign educated Canadians who have achieved work in their professionally trained field is one in four, mainly because of arduous certification processes necessary to practice in these fields. The tax credit being proposed by the Liberals is to help these new Canadians achieve their accreditation.

Dalton McGuinty's message is focused on the positive, how do we continue to build on Ontario's successes and move forward. The politics being argued here divide and pits "ordinary voters" vs "downtown elites." I believe all voters, regardless of their geographic location or background, should be considered with the same amount respectful communication.

 

Response from Jeffrey Ferrier, former communications director for the Ontario NDP

As a Dad, when I hear the words "tea party," I think about playtime with my daughter and son. You know, sharing imaginary Earl Grey, crumpets and finger sandwiches. Lots of dainty talk. Quality time with our teddy bear friends. For me, tea party doesn't inspire fright. And it sure doesn't make me want to run into the open arms of Dalton McGuinty.

It's almost inevitable for campaign teams to lose sight of their audience from time to time. This is what happens when you sequester people in dark smelly rooms for 30 straight days, pump them full of Red Bull and pizza, make them work 18-hour days, subject them to a steady diet of TV news and Twitter, and give them no-one to talk to but each other. It's pretty easy to lose perspective.

But as I mentioned in yesterday's exchange, I think there's more to the "Tea Party Tim" and "Taxman" name-calling than campaigns losing sight of their audiences. It's campaign strategy. Sliming your opponents to try and suppress their vote is a key part of the U.S.-style campaigns that both the Liberals and PC Party are running (as today's Star editorial cartoon demonstrates well).

So what is a voter to do?

Maybe they should check out what's behind the orange door.

Take today for example. Andrea Horwath is focused on one of this campaign's critical issues: Jobs.

Her message: We can get the economy going and more people working, but first we have to stop the games, and start focusing on the solutions.

Horwath's solution: A Job Creation Tax Credit. It recognizes that the best way to help new Canadians, or Canadians who have been here for generations find a job is to create more jobs.

Here's how it works. Rather than doling out no-strings-attached corporate tax giveaways, rather than setting up divisive job schemes, let's reward employers who create a job for an out-of-work Ontarian. Any out-of-work Ontarian. No matter who they are. What they do. Or where they come from. New Democrats estimate their plan will create 80,000 jobs over four years.

That's different. That's fair. That's change that puts people first.