babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
If Elxn 42 were in Oct 2016 would Trudeau still have won?
July 18, 2016 - 6:59am
===
We have had multiple Terrorist attacks overseas, multiple shootings towards police, and several terrorist attacks in the USA.
This is horrible to say, and I'm SO GLAD this didn't happen, but I think that the Conservatives were hoping that a major terrorist attack would happen during the election. Then they could use the public safety card and say they were the only ones to keep Canada safe.
During the election last year, and even months leading up to the election, the world wasn't in this much turmoil. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, the only terrorist attacks that did happened during this time were after Trudeau was sworn into office. That was the Paris attacks in November 2015. Though there was an attack earlier in the year, March 2015.
So with all this uncertainty in the world now, I really don't know if Trudeau would have won with a majority. People didn't want Harper, so maybe Mulcair could have won. As people would be looking for someone statesman like, who would be experienced in these uncertain times. As Trudeau would be seen as too young and green to deal with all this uncertainty and terrorist attacks.
What do you think?
I think it doesn't matter. Trudeau is now viewed as very statesman-like. Harper came very close to winning the election. He was in the lead at several points. It would not have helped Mulcair at all as he was the most against "fighting" terrorism. The NDP and Conservatives tried to paint Trudeau as too young and green but voters didn't buy it. I think Trudeau would still have won a majority. Ultimately most people vote based on domestic issues anyway.
He certainly wouldn't "have won" because October 2016 is in the future.
Stole my line.
How about a thread entitled: "If the election had taken place in October 2014, would Trudeau still have won?" I won't open it unless there's enough popular demand.
It's a good question, Mighty Middle. The niqab wouldn't have become an issue without Harper's approval, and he knew what it took to win. Why else would he all of a sudden go there after a decade trying to show his party as moderate and not racist? In a way the gamble paid off, as close to 3 in 10 voters backed a party that took a blatantly racist position during the campaign. Xenophobia is sweeping the globe. Even in Sweden, the far-right nationalist party is polling very well.
That would have been a difficult card to play if there had been an attack in Canada. After all, when the passengers are climbing out of the ditch, it's probably not a good time for the chauffeur to ask for a raise. Then there was the famous closet episode. I don't know that it changed anyone's mind, but it sure didn't win over a lot people. It also made it very difficult to play the 'security' card.
And the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January of 2015. But aren't you kind of restricting the meaning of 'terrorist attack'. Terrorist attacks initiated by the USA, Israel, and others continued throughout.
You know, the prime candidate for playing the 'security' card was President Bush (the younger). He had the best planned and executed terrorist attack of all time to use. But it didn't really help him much. He won the 2004 election, but with the slimmest margin of any previous incumbent president. Who knows, perhaps he would have lost, but there was no great surge of support for him.
As far as statesmanlike, I don't think Harper was especially statesmanlike, and Mulcair, however statesmanlike he may be, was the leader of a party that didn't have a foreign policy plank in their platform.
Well he would have. However, the latest Leadnow survey of those who participated has Trudeau down from 20 to 15% regarding the questions "shares my values", and down from 47% to 42% regarding the questions "shares some of my values". The rose bloom still shines, but appears to be starting to wear off. This gives me hope. He is a neo-con and hopefully his naricssitic, smart-ass approach will come back to bit him in the you know what with time. I'd love that. He's a phoney, and with any luck the same stupid, "progressives", he made him PM, will come to regret their vote and realize the NDP is the ONLY true choice for them.
All of the pundits commenting on the Presidential race said that if ISIS after ISIS after terrorist attacks happen in the next 90 days, Trump wins.
If that happened in Canada, why wouldn't Harper had won?
Because pundits are not always correct?
Because Harper hid in a closet, while Trudeau defeated Brazeau in the boxing ring?
I know who I'd want as my Leader in the war against terror!
Don't mention this to the PR election types. They're convinced the Liberals are just a slightly less progressive offshoot of the NDP.
I think all of the NDP's MP's and a strong majority of NDP members support PR. Establishing an MMP system is an official policy of the NDP.
I think the same dynamic would have been at play if the election had been one year later: the NDP and Liberals were going to break the logjam with the winner of their contest taking all. While the Harper government may have had some beneficial talking points and issues, people were at their core sick of their approach.
In the end people were weary of fear and wanted something more hopeful. Trudeau did a better job of marketing hopeful last year. He woudl have this year as well as nothing in the last year would have changed any of the three leaders had the Harper government another year on the mandate.
Given a choice, even many skeptics will choose to support a positive image over a negative one. It really is very basic: people want positive. This is not left or right: most successful leaders came to power offering a positive vision at least at first. Those with a negative vision at the outset have a poor record.
The party with the most convincing postive message is in the best position to win. Unless Trudeau's vision could have been completely discredited or another brighter sunnier vision competing with it -- he was going to win.
The NDP does have the capacity to present a positive image but Mulcair really could not pull it off and a year would not ahve changed that. Harper's course had been run.
All this said the Liberals have a demographic challenge: They have to keep the previous non-voters engaged. The voters from the previous election were not enough to bring Trudeau his majority. To get that he needed and got a majority of the support from first-time voters and those who had not voted in a long time. He will have to retain that support to win the next election.
One year in, there is little sign that this is eroding, rather he has taken further support from the NDP, some from the Conservatives and perhaps even engaged further with the previous non-voters.
Of course this is something that can turn quickly as we are not talking about the most loyal of voters. The Liberal advantage is that so long as many think the NDP would have done no better and people think what they have is better than what they had under Harper, the Liberals remain in a good position. That and maintaining a high enough turnout is what they need to win the next election.
I agree in large part with your analysis Sean. It is unlikely though possible that the Liberals will be defeated in 2019, a greater chance in 2023, and even greater in 2027.
In your opinion what should the NDP do to prepare? What approach do you think will, or could, defeat the Liberals?
It is impossible to be anything but general. I think that there are different types of winning conditions for any party but they have common themes.
I would say winning conditions are getting three things perfect:
1) The issue: what is most important?
2) The outlook: are things (in the public perception) getting better, worse, or staying the same?
3) What style and tone is best to project?
The issue could be economy, security, social justice, environment etc. You have to get that right (it can be a combination).
Then the outlook:
1) campaign of fear with a party convincing the population that it can protect them in difficult times. Things are bad and we are the best to help you. (The later Harper campaigns)
2) campaign of hope with a party convincing the population that it can bring real change. Things are not great but we can make things much better. (Trudeau's 2015 campaign)
3) campaign of preservation convincing the population that things are basically doing as well as can be expected and the party can keep things good (like the elder Trudeau the land is strong campaign -- where the expectations of previous campaigns for big improvements were dialed back in favour of acceptance of a positive record).
Then what style and tone: Strength? Competence? Openness? Honesty? Authenticity?
Then you need to know who is the most motivated and who can be changed.
Most voters do not swing in an election. Normally only 5% - 15% actually change. These are the people that make the decision from defeat to majority. The other 85% either don't vote or vote predictably. You have to identify who is likely to change this time and see if you can get them to come to you (or stay with you). You have to figure out what is motivating them: fear, hope, anger etc.
Will the rhetoric be aimed at older voters -- boomers -- demanding improved health and income? Will it be a new generation's concerns? The environment? Technology? Jobs? Security? What will be the key public issue?
Once that issue is identified and a party gets the outlook and tone and have identified the voters who could move they only have to prepare the platform and campaign to bring them home. The hard part is getting all this basis right. All the work you invest is for nothing if you missed these key foundations.
And of course things can shift during an election.
So advice for parties (the NDP or the others the advice is the same):
First you need to listen to be sure you can identify all the above. You have to have the right leader to capture all this and come across as authentic and timely. Then you need the program and delivery.
All parties need to get all this right. The Liberals will defend a record and the other parties will propose and attack.
In 2015 Mulcair was safe, less ambitious. Trudeau appeared the most ambitious and optimistic. This is what the people wanted after the Harper years. They were up for risk. After Trudeau, they might want safe or they might want more of the same. Or they might be fearful. The parties will have to gauge this correctly and have a leader appropriate for that campaign. I cannot predict now which type of environment they will face.
What they can do is be as relevant as they can; earn trust by focusing on the right issues with the right answers. With the population not particularly angry right now the parties must be constructive rather than hostile. They have to be authentic. They have to look less like they are engineering coverage and manipulating even if that is exactly what they are doing. For now they probably have to keep the flexibility to position themselves later. They should not become too, activist or too safe. They will have to find specific, hopefully life-changing issues to champion and answers to those issues.
Practically speaking all parties need bilingual, strong communicators, poeple who the public can relate to and programs that are relevant.
They need luck: elections are always about the government and the record will be important.
To answer the OP's question, the election couldn't have been held as late as October 2016.
Elections must be held within a maximum of 5 years, therefore since the previous election was in May 2011, the latest Harper could have held an election was May 2016.