Notes from the By-election Campaign Trail
Don't forget to check out By-election Central at http://byelxn.punditsguide.ca.
Time to catch up on the by-election campaigns going on, and make a few notes on the ones that could be coming down the pike.
- Two of the Liberal candidates have tried the "debate challenge gambit". In the case of Tony Genco, he's challenged his Conservative opponent in Vaughan, Julian Fantino, to a debate; while in Winnipeg North, Kevin Lamoureux has challenged his NDP opponent Kevin Chief. Since front-runners rarely challenge opponents to debates, this is usually the tactic of a challenger who is either trying for some media coverage, or believes they perceive some kind of weakness in the front-runner. We'll keep an eye out for any resulting debates.
- Here's another question about debate challenges: are they challenging who they believe their opposition to be, or who they hope their opposition is? It's a question worth raising, in light of the Prime Minister's surprise visit to Winnipeg North. Events are not proposed for a PM's schedule unless they can be justified as a good use of time, and are considered to be beneficial and not harmful to the governing party's strategic objectives. Anyone who believes this was just a matter of being in town to say hello, has not considered all the different places the "listening tour" could have been scheduled to start, apart from Winnipeg. So, is Mr. Lamoureux hearing Conservative footsteps close behind him, and wanting to portray the riding as a two-party race? This must have all been part of the strategic reasoning behind proposing a two-way debate with the NDP, one assumes from outside.
- Still with the Prime Minister's campaign stop, it became news first in a blogpost and then a story by the Winnipeg Free Press' Mia Rabson. Debate is continuing as to why it might have been organized that way, but I'm reasonably convinced that the method chosen (a) limited the election expenses that would have been incurred, and (b) allowed the PM to deliver the very targeted messages he wanted to without distraction — not only the verbal message that contained the positioning statement and preferred ballot question, but the non-verbal one that was communicated by his presence with a new candidate representing a newly targeted demographic for his party in that riding.
- Back to the Liberals, Dauphin — Swan River — Marquette, MB candidate Christopher Scott Sarna was officially nominated on November 2, it turns out, so now having a nomination date for him, I've entered him into the database, along with his website, and his Facebook fan page, which was just set up on Tuesday and details his extensive political experience with both the Liberals and PCs in Manitoba and Alberta. He's having his campaign kick-off this coming Sunday at the resort he is part-owner of, the Elkhorn. His NDP opponent, Denise Harder, has also just surfaced on Facebook. Their Green counterpart, meanwhile, is reporting on Twitter that the Conservative vote is "collapsing", and asserts that "#DSRM is going Green". Now, she may be right. Or not. But the risk for candidates playing the expectations game this way is that it's awfully hard to come back from dashed expectations the next time around. Which is why most experienced candidates don't.
- Tony Clement is the second cabinet minister to lend a hand to Conservative candidate Julian Fantino for an announcement on taxes and small business, following last week's campaign visit by Rob Nicholson focusing on the victims of crime. Looks like they were going to go canvassing together with Peter MacKay afterwards as well. Fantino was also scheduled to give an interview to Vaughan Today yesterday (if you'll pardon the pun).
- Here's another take on that Vaughan Liberal rally, from YorkRegion.com. Conservative blogger Stephen Taylor and the Calgary Grit have been sparring over the general topic. Other Liberal bloggers have been trying to land some punches on Julian Fantino.
- Under the heading of campaign techniques: Liberal Tony Genco announced on Twitter that he had engaged with 8,700 Vaughan citizens by a tele-townhall. I'm told it's a very powerful technology that permits campaigns to know who is listening, and get all-important Voter ID at the same time, but 8,700 voters is 1/6.5 of all the electors who voted in Vaughan during the 2008 election: that's a lot of power if true. I also tried to participate in one of Vaughan Green candidate Claudia Rodriguez-Larrain's daily 7 PM Skype sessions, but had some technical problems, so I'll try again another time.
- Stop the presses! This is the first ever set of by-elections NOT being contested by John Turmel — at least that I can remember. Although he could still show up in the Haute Gaspésie seat, I suppose, if that one ever gets called.
- Meanwhile, the anti-Conservative conservative parties are splintering: in addition to Progressive Canadian party candidate Dorian Baxter, Vaughan will be playing host to the first ever candidacy of the recently-registered United Party of Canada, whose leader Brian Jedan is also nominated. The United Party was formed by some former members of the Progressive Canadian party, who are red tories unhappy with the merger of the former Progressive Conservative party with the Canadian Alliance. They'll be joined by Paolo Fabrizio of the Libertarian Party, who promises to be a better taxfighter, and even more resolutely opposed to the gun registry, than other conservatives. The Christian Heritage Party is fielding candidates in both Manitoba ridings (Jerome Dondo in DSRM and Eric Truijen in Winnipeg North), but not in Vaughan. Finally, at the other end of the spectrum, Ed Komarniski will run for the Communist Party of Canada in Winnipeg North, and we've already mentioned Jeff Coleman of the Pirate Party running there, and independent Leslie Bory in Vaughan. This rounds out the full slate of by-election candidates. Advanced voting starts on Friday, November 19.
- In the vacant seats with no by-election calls as yet, Haute Gaspésie — La Mitis — Matane — Matapédia, QC Liberal candidate Nancy Charest is shooting back at the Bloc Québécois' Jean-François Fortin over his having been employed in the constituency office of retired MP Jean-Yves Roy. And Jack Layton made a visit to Prince George — Peace River, BC to join NDP nomination candidate Lois Boone outside Jay Hill's former constituency office in a bid to urge the Prime Minister to call the by-election there so voters could pass judgement on the HST.
- Gary Doer may no longer be the Premier of Manitoba, but his wife Ginny Devine, who is a well-known pollster in the province, dropped in to visit the Kevin Chief campaign during Jack Layton's recent visit, and stayed to pose for a few pictures. And while I'm sure that these ads which started running last weekend have more to do with this, they are certainly a happy coincidence for Mr. Chief's campaign, although probably no more so than these ones or these others ones are for the Conservative candidates' campaigns. Also recently seen campaigning with Chief is former Liberal candidate and well-known Métis musician Ray St. Germain. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in some quarters that aboriginal people don't participate in canadian electoral politics, Chief's campaign is said to have signed up some 600 new members in that riding. Additionally, I seem to have overlooked mentioning in my review of provincial MLAs last time that Wellington MLA Flor Marcelino is also a provincial cabinet minister for tourism (she's a newer member since my times in Winnipeg, is my excuse).
- Another topic I really scotched up last time was my quick review of the provincial history of Vaughan riding, on which I have been corrected by several knowledgeable veterans of the area. Al Palladini passed away during his second term as an Ontario MPP for the riding, and was replaced by Greg Sorbara in the subsequent by-election. My apologies for not taking the extra few minutes to get those details correct.
Here are the latest Facebook counts, with a few new candidates putting in their first appearances.
Vaughan – Facebook Count
Tally at 4:55 AM — Fantino – 379, Genco – 356, Bordian – 177, Rodriguez-Larrain – 115
Nov 8 at 6:20 AM — Fantino – 351, Genco – 323, Bordian – 166, Rodriguez-Larrain – 104
Nov 6 at 3:40 AM — Fantino – 343, Genco – 309, Bordian – 164, Rodriguez-Larrain – 100
Nov 4 at 1:40 AM — Fantino – 305, Genco – 260, Bordian – 85
Winnipeg North – Facebook Count
Tally at 4:55 AM — Chief – 1,178, Lamoureux – 543, Javier – 119, Coleman – 56, Harvie – 4
Nov 8 at 6:20 AM — Chief – 1,167, Lamoureux – 528, Javier – 106
Nov 6 at 3:40 AM — Chief – 1,141, Lamoureux – 504, Javier – 96
Nov 4 at 1:40 AM — Chief – 1,118, Lamoureux – 434, Javier – 66
Dauphin – SW-M – Facebook Count
Tally at 4:55 AM — Sopuck – 103, Storey – 64, Harder – 20, Sarna – 19
Nov 8 at 6:20 AM — Sopuck – 91, Storey – 52
Nov 6 at 3:40 AM — Sopuck – 90, Storey – 50
Nov 4 at 1:40 AM — Sopuck – 55
Tags: Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette, Haute-Gaspésie-La Mitis-Matane-Matapédia, Nov 29 2010 By-elections, Prince George-Peace River, Retiring Incumbents, Vacant Seats, Vaughan, Winnipeg North
The liberals request for debates seem a little off especially when considering the fact they’ve held Vaughan for so long. and both requests aren’t the same , the one for Winnipeg North is more civil and sounds like a serious request, where Vaughan is more an anti tory rant than anything else. its also interesting to see there by-election policy is different in each riding . In Dauphin they claim that they want to reform gun registry and waive fees . but in Vaughan its a life saving tool supposedly supported by entire riding ? 2 different by-elections same issue but very different policy i find this a little bizare.
Since the 1980 Federal election, there have been 33 ’sets’ of federal by-elections. Turmel has only run in 18 of them, passing up 15 opportunities to spread his unique views.
Good catch on the gun registry issue, RCO.
I’m not sure what the deal is with “challenging” other candidates to a debate. In just about every riding in just about every election – a whole series of all-candidates debates are a standard fixture (though Tory candidates typically refuse to participate in them). So what are these Liberal candidates in Wpg North and VKL demanding that isn’t already scheduled?
RCO…don’t be so surprised at what you’re seeing in the two Liberal campaigns.
The history of the Liberal Party is one of talking out of both sides of their mouths.
They always campaign from the left, but steer to the right when in power.
Mackenzie King was infamous for making speeches where he took both sides of an issue.
It’s what people have come to expect from that political party, so it’s no surprise to me.
no it doesn’t surprise that the liberals are trying to say 2 different things. maybe there trying to be like the democrats who have liberal members in the cities but some conservative ones in rural areas . they are from the same party but views are drastically different on major issues. although this strategy didn’t continue to work much in recent mid terms but did work in 06 and 08 us elections. but this likely wouldn’t work in the long term for liberals here either as iggy doesn’t let mp’s vote freely on big votes .
Heres my surmise of the 3 major Winnipeg North campaigns.
LIBERALS. Excellent candidate, who must have a great ground organization in his provincial riding. Hooked to a leader without traction, and a national organization that for some time seems incapable of bringing anything to individual races, even in by-elections. With a long dormant riding organization, if that remains true they’ll be in third place despite a good candidate and the best shot they are ever going to get at this seat.
CONSERVATIVES. Even less existing depth than the Liberals on the ground. And by appearances doomed to third place [the 2008 result being with the Liberals at their worst]. BUT: the Conservatives have a proven capability to drop in an excellent campaign and make maximum use of local volunteers. And I agree with Alice that they are playing a very shrewd visibility campaign, playing without bluster to their strengths. I dont think their goal or their celing is a second place humiliation of the Liberals.
NDP. No matter what, going to be the favourites. But no easy ride. They have the organization, and the marks for the E-day turnout essential in a by-election. Kevin Chief’s ability to bring in new aboriginal voters compensates for strengths the other two campaigns have that are noted above. They also have the most popular leader, and are apparently waiting to play that advantage when it means the most.
Alice did you catch this story:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/cash-strapped-federal-liberals-turn-to-pros-to-raise-money-107502198.html
Question:
Is there any way to find out if this professional fundraising team is taking a flat flee or a percentage ??
Do other parties do this or is it usually done in house ?
I know in the US the use of paid fundraising outfits is turning into a huge controversy in conservative circles this cycle.
They raised millions from grass roots donors supposedly for tea party candidates but then took a huge cut of the money, well over 50%.
People often have the same concern about charities.
It can be very exploitative.
(Not saying that’s necessarily the situation here. In fact the article makes these people sound more like consultants.)
The article does referr to consultants.
I think the NDO does both in-house and contracted. I’m more sure the Greens rely on contracted. I’d be VERY surprised if the Conservative Party does it all in house. And I’d be even more surprised that whoever does it, if the Conservatives do not have the most expensive fundraising [as percentage of dollar raised].
But that has to be conjecture, since party reporting of expenses does not allow examination of that. Let alone who is doing the fundraising.
Ken the lack of information is unfortunate.
Canada’s reporting is pathetic compared to the detailed spending and fundraising info US politicians have to provide each quarter.
Just another area where the books need to be opened up. Same goes for MPs’ and senators’ expenses too.
US politicians barely have to disclose anything. In the US its legal for domestic and foreign companies to spend unlimited amounts of money in support of any candidate they want with NO DISCLOSURE WHATSOEVER of who they are. That’s why the US is 10 times the population of Canada and spends about 1,000 times as much on political campaigns.
DL those are 527s. They can run ads but they can’t coordinate with anyone.
The actual party committees (RNC, NRSC, NRCC) and the actual candidates themselves need to disclose any donors over $200 and provide an itemized list of all their spending to individuals and vendors on a quarterly basis.
Its far and away better than in Canada.
We get a yearly report on spending by parties and its rather vague by comparison.
Its not vague at all. If you go on the Elections Canada website you can look at each party by quarter and see the name and amount donated for every single donation they received and the full accounting of what candidates spend in an election year is detailed to the last penny. Its all there – even though the amounts that are spent in Canada are sooooo minute by US standards. The candidates running in Winnipeg North are not allowed to spend more than about $65,000 in total. If this was the US, the three major parties would each be spending about a $1 million on the byelection.
If you actually believe that 527s in the US don’t carefully coordinate their ad buys with political campaigns – I have some swamp to sell you in Florida.
DL elections Canada was just in the news last week about the fact that they have no way of verifying any of the spending the parties are being reimbursed for.
And we don’t have quarterly spending reports. Unlike in the US they are yearly.
Its impossible for me to know how much cash on hand the parties have at this moment.
The yearly statements are NOT itemized. I know how much they spend on advertising but NOT which firms they hired for instance.
Hands down the US has better reporting for its parties and candidates.
(And yes they don’t coordinate. Its a serious crime to do so. In fact, candidates often complain about outside ads stepping all over their message.)
Canadian and US systems are comparable about having to name contributors and amounts. [With the big caveat that in the US there is that shadow world.]
Canadian and US reporting is also comparable for CANDIDATES- because Canadian candidates have to itemize expenses. But Canadian PARTIES do not have to.
So if a candidate [riding] campaign says they spent $XX on fundraising, I can check that against the disbursements. But Canadian parties can pretty arbitrarily allocate where they attribute expenses. And there are no disbursement records to check that against.
Let alone the parties get to just name their campaign expenses level for which they are getting reimbursed 50% with taxpayer funds.
When Elections Canada asks for that to be corrected, both the Liberals and Conservatives say it is unecessary because they are audited. But there is all kinds of election expense inflation that would not trip audit standards. Nor are accountants able to simply add new special purpose regulatory standards to the audit.
About 99% of the money spent in US political campaigns is “soft money” from 527s and thy are accountable to NO ONE and there are no limits. Of course its supposedly illegal to coordinate 527 money with official political campaigns – but everyone flouts that law with impunity – especially Republicans.
DL is this a conspiracy theory or do you have any evidence that campaigns are coordinating with outside groups ??
The biggest spender in the 2010 election was unions and it went to democrats.
Nobody knows where that money is coming from. Did they get it from their members ? Was it dues or contributions ? Did people outside the union contribute ?
I must say I completely endorse and support your outrage towards the spending practices of unions DL.
Corporations donate about 100 times as much money to political campaigns as unions do. On top of that unions have to be accountable to their members about how their money is spent and its all documented. Try asking the Koch brothers to list the estimates ONE BILLION dollars they spent this year on getting Republicans elected.
There is a reason why Democrats in the US are in favour of banning all corporate and union donations and imposing strict campaign spending limits – while Republicans oppose any restrictions at all – because Republican benefit from vast infusions from foreign corporations that basically buy the votes of whoever they give money to.
DL unions and corporations cannot give money to political campaigns.
They can give money to the party associations, PACs, and 527s, some of which are limited in how much they can donate to individual candidates.
The biggest spender in 2010 was AFSCME:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html
Koch brothers are nice villains, ever hear of George Soros ?
BTW – Corporations, starting in 2006, have been giving big money to DEMOCRATS.
In 2008 they favored Obama, in 2009 they favored democrats by far, and only in 2010 when it became clear that the Republicans were going to take back the house did they start giving to them again.
Basically they give to whoever is going to win. On both sides.
Where as unions give almost exclusively to democrats.
Thank goodness that all this third party 527 crap is illegal in Canada and that we have strict limits on what can be spent. If we had the US system, Billiton would have phoned up Stephen Harper said “let our Potash deal go through and we’ll give your party $1 billion” and he would be happily accepting their bribe and doing their bidding.
Imagine what a difference it would make to US politics if they just banned all third party spending and they made it illegal to spend more than $1 per voter in the jurisdiction you are running in. No more Meg Whitmans spending $150 million to buy an election or that crackpot wrestling woman in Connecticut spending $50 million.
We have third party spending in Canada. Its just that there’s a spending limit. Here’s the most recent example:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/conservatives-against-fantino-group-to-protest-ex-opp-commissioner-in-byelection-107305463.html
But what difference would it make in the US ?
Meg Whitman and Linda Macmohan (sp?) both lost. In fact the history of self funders on both sides of the aisle is pretty bad in terms of winning. And the biggest fundraising candidates like Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell both lost. (Not Chuck Schumer but he wasn’t in danger anyways.)
And the endless barrage of ads from both sides seem to cancel each other out or turn people off.
PACs and the party fundraising groups are probably a bigger problem than 527s running advertising (which is really just free speech) because they can give money directly to candidates.
Imagine if Meg Whitman had donated that $150 million to something like research into a cure for malaria rather than on her absurd race for governor of California – oh what a wonderful world!
As a rule conservatives don’t imagine uses for other people’s money.
The world gets pretty scary when you start going down that road.