How federal Liberals can defeat Harper without joining the NDP

[August1991]

1. Money. Do what Obama did and collect lots of money from ordinary people. Read Karl Rove's autobiography and learn about his true talent: focussed mailings. Harper has granted the Liberals some Oprah seed money by keeping the vote subsidy for a year or so. The Liberals should use this subsidy money to set up an online, democratic, money collection scheme where average donations are under $100. The Liberals need a good fundraiser.

2. Poll. The Liberals must poll relentlessly, even down to individual polls in specific ridings. To win an election, modern political parties have to know where their potential voters are. In Canada, this means knowing which ridings will possibly go Liberal because enough federal voters will choose it. By 2015, someone working at the federal Liberal Party should be able to say how many voters in Poll 142 of Calgary-Nose Hill are opposed to abortion - or at least, how many are retired. (Poll? See above, fund raising.)

3. Leader. Get the leader right, someone who can connect to voters. Someone like Reagan, Gorbachev, Trudeau, Bush Jnr, Palin. I recently heard Stéphane Dion on the English CBC in Montreal. What he says is logical but the way he says it is wrong. (Perhaps in 1935, people said the same of Winston Churchill. I have a tremendous admiration for Dion since - like Churchill - he has remained an MP.)

-----

To form a majority government in Canada, a federal party needs to win 154 seats or so. With riding revision, it may be 170 seats in the next federal election. By 2015, people in the federal Liberal Party must have the money to know exactly where the voters are to form a majority.

Win a majority? Ça se fait. Et c'est l'atout du Parti libéral fédéral: A party of the civilized centre.

Edited June 16, 2011 by August1991

[Evening Star]

I always liked Dion too.

[August1991]

I always liked Dion too.

Dion? Churchill? When Parizeau attacks Ottawa in Le Devoir, Dion is the guy to have. Dion is a true federalist, and a true democrat. But Dion cannot speak like Churchill.

[segnosaur]

1. Money. Do what Obama did and collect lots of money from ordinary people....The Liberals should use this subsidy money to set up an online, democratic, money collection scheme where average donations are under $100.

Ummm... the liberal party does have a section right on their web site to allow them to accept donations 'on line'. Not sure what could be different about that.

Yeah, they could be better at advertising their need for cash, but being the "middle of the road" party, I think they're kind of at a disadvantage... while people might be willing to vote for them in order to avoid going too far to the political left or right, they may not feel strongly enough to actually give money to the cause.

2. Poll. The Liberals must poll relentlessly, even down to individual polls in specific ridings.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any evidence to suggest that the Liberals weren't using a lot of opinion polls?

[Keepitsimple]

1. Money. Do what Obama did and collect lots of money from ordinary people.

2. Poll. The Liberals must poll relentlessly, even down to individual polls in specific ridings. To win an election, modern political parties have to know where their potential voters are.

3. Leader. Get the leader right, someone who can connect to voters. Someone like Reagan, Gorbachev, Trudeau, Bush Jnr, Palin.

Good luck to them.

1) To raise money, people have to be willing to give....and the party has to have something to offer that they cannot get somewhere else. Until they can define themselves - and find a leader who can effectively "sell" the party - people will keep a tight grip on their wallets.

2) Polling - Conservatives have been doing this for years - and by the time the Liberals get around to it, they'll find that on most issues that matter to mainstream Canadians, the Conservatives have already claimed the ground.....which goes back to defining the party....they've effectively given away the center to the Conservatives.

3) Leader.....yep, that one's a big one and eventually, if they pick the right one.....people might rally around him or her.

It's not that you're wrong - on the contrary. It's just that the Liberals should have done all three 5 years ago. They are likely coming too late to the ball.

[Bryan]

August, from my vantage point, it seems like all you are saying is "Look at what the Conservatives did, and copy that".

Sounds great if you have that same ideological hold on your base that the Conservatives do. Modern Liberals almost intentionally stand for nothing specific. How do you engage voters enough to monetize that?

Personally I think the Liberal Party has to abandon everything that we think we know about modern Canadian liberalism. Tell people "we are CLASSICAL Liberals" and actually move right of the Conservative party on policy. Then at least they'd stand for something that people might invest in.

[Evening Star]

Should they replace their entire caucus and membership as well? I know Bob Rae, Justin Trudeau, etc don't stand for much but I still don't think they'd actually be willing to embrace policies that are further right than Harper's. Maybe I'm wrong, however, and they really are that shameless: They could turn Paul Martin's 1995 budget into some sort of holy book in that case. This might conceivably work if the CPC ends up being as fiscally irresponsible as I expect them to.

Still, who would take the LPC seriously if they swung that far right after they tried to run an NDP campaign in this election? (They won a majority in 1997 so maybe it's not a problem, though...)

From my perspective, if anyone is offering a distinct 'third vision' now, it's the Green Party. Maybe the Liberals could merge with or co-opt the Greens? Or just rip off their ideas like Dion did? Didn't seem to work out too well for him, though...

(I'll be honest: I don't really see the Liberals resurging and am not too troubled about it. People who like what they stood for in the 60s and 70s can vote NDP. People who like their 90s fiscal conservatism will probably be OK with the CPC. The Greens offer something in the middle, economically, with socially progressive stances, actual principles on foreign policy, and new and interesting ideas when it comes to environmental policy.)

Edited June 17, 2011 by Evening Star

[Wild Bill]

Sounds great if you have that same ideological hold on your base that the Conservatives do. Modern Liberals almost intentionally stand for nothing specific. How do you engage voters enough to monetize that?

Might be a bit deeper than that, Bryan. Tory voters seem to be more of the type of people that understand things need to be paid! They know that nothing is really free and that if they want their chosen party to be successful they need to help it out financially.

Leftwingers usually seem to feel that money just grows on trees! Why should they have to pick it for someone else?

I truly feel that the Liberal potential donation base is just not as inclined to pony up! They're the type of people that are the last to bring beer to the party and the first to complain if it runs out!

[Newfoundlander]

One big issue with the Liberals is that Harper has people convinced that the party would be fiscally irresponsible if they were in power, and the Liberals proved that by barely focusing on the economy in their latest platform and promising lots of spending. The Liberals have proven themselves on the fiscally conservative front in the past and they need to let Canadians know that they can be fiscally responsible. Their last platform was an NDP platform, there was nothing centrist about it.

People voted Conservative because they were focused on the economy, people voted NDP because they liked Layton and his social policies. The Liberals need to make Canadians believe that they can handle the economy as well as protect and implement social programs. They need to be a centrist party, which they are not anymore. They need to look at Chretien because I think he mastered centrism.

[the C]

One big issue with the Liberals is that Harper has people convinced that the party would be fiscally irresponsible if they were in power, and the Liberals proved that by barely focusing on the economy in their latest platform and promising lots of spending. The Liberals have proven themselves on the fiscally conservative front in the past and they need to let Canadians know that they can be fiscally responsible. Their last platform was an NDP platform, there was nothing centrist about it.

People voted Conservative because they were focused on the economy, people voted NDP because they liked Layton and his social policies. The Liberals need to make Canadians believe that they can handle the economy as well as protect and implement social programs. They need to be a centrist party, which they are not anymore. They need to look at Chretien because I think he mastered centrism.

the big problem with the liberals isn't so much the platform but leadership, and since Chretien they have been lacking in strong leadership

[Evening Star]

the big problem with the liberals isn't so much the platform but leadership, and since Chretien they have been lacking in strong leadership

I don't entirely agree: Stephen Harper and Dalton McGuinty are not charming or charismatic leaders but they have been successful in elections. I think what most people look for is someone who actually has ideas and values, who seems to sincerely believe them, and who can communicate them in a way that makes sense. All parts are important imo and the Liberals have been failing on all sides (platform/policy as well as leadership). This doesn't necessarily explain Chretien though...

Edited June 17, 2011 by Evening Star

[Guest Derek L]

I don't entirely agree: Stephen Harper and Dalton McGuinty are not charming or charismatic leaders but they have been successful in elections. I think what most people look for is someone who actually has ideas and values, who seems to sincerely believes them, and who can communicate them in a way that makes sense. All parts are important imo and the Liberals have been failing on all sides (platform/policy as well as leadership). This doesn't necessarily explain Chretien though...

And I don’t exactly agree…….Our party members aside, the general populace for the longest time felt Harper a emotionless robot……I think it took Harper’s handlers (Chief of staff & wife) urging to put him “out there” to show his “human” side……Whether you like him or not, the singing bits over the last year or so did help him with some undecided (women/mothers?) voters.

[Evening Star]

And I don’t exactly agree…….Our party members aside, the general populace for the longest time felt Harper a emotionless robot……I think it took Harper’s handlers (Chief of staff & wife) urging to put him “out there” to show his “human” side……Whether you like him or not, the singing bits over the last year or so did help him with some undecided (women/mothers?) voters.

He did win two elections before this one. He has shown more warmth etc but he's still a long way from winning any prizes for charisma, right?

Maybe I'm wrong though. In a certain way, I actually like Harper's awkwardness.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Evening Star

[Guest Derek L]

He did win two elections before this one. He has shown more warmth etc but he's still a long way from winning any prizes for charisma, right?

Maybe I'm wrong though. In a certain way, I actually like Harper's awkwardness.

I like him too, but truth be told, in 04 I briefly flirted with the idea of Stronach, thinking she’d be more electable and garner more undecided voters over to the party……But I agree, Harper reminds me of my accountant, nothing flashy but gets the job done....I also liked Manning & Stanfield……never trusted Mulroney……

[Triple M]

Not to be overly partisan but I don't see the Liberals defeating Harper. When the Liberals or a new centrist party that takes over their legacy eventually win an election I don't foresee Harper being around to defeat. In 2015 I just don't see the Liberals beings in the shape needed to beat Harper. Therefore, If they don't get him at that time then it will probably never come seeing as Harper would have been PM for 10+ years and would probably not run in a 6th federal election.

[August1991]

August, from my vantage point, it seems like all you are saying is "Look at what the Conservatives did, and copy that".

All modern political parties in North America do this. It is perhaps more astonishing that the federal Liberals never bothered (and I wonder if they will even learn.)

Obama was very good at fundraising with small donations but I think that he was complacent on polling; his campaign relied on his own charisma.

Bush Jnr could rely on a base of substantial campaign donors but his campaign was very good at focussing on specific voter groups.

Canada's campaign finance laws force the Liberals to raise money the way Obama did and to focus the message the way Bush Jnr did. To a degree, Harper has already done that but the Liberals should take this idea into prime time.

Ummm... the liberal party does have a section right on their web site to allow them to accept donations 'on line'. Not sure what could be different about that.

I have a section on my website for donations too. I even registered with Paypal.

The Liberal party has to know who potential donors are and it has to harass/cajole them to donate. Think animal rights activists and the rich old lady next door with 37 cats.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any evidence to suggest that the Liberals weren't using a lot of opinion polls?

From all reports, Ignatieff was the smart guy with all the answers Edited June 18, 2011 by August1991

[Smallc]

The Liberal party has to know who potential donors are and it has to harass/cajole them to donate. Think animal rights activists and the rich old lady next door with 37 cats.

It does that.

[August1991]

2) Polling - Conservatives have been doing this for years - and by the time the Liberals get around to it, they'll find that on most issues that matter to mainstream Canadians, the Conservatives have already claimed the ground.....which goes back to defining the party....they've effectively given away the center to the Conservatives.

First of all, the Conservatives have done this in a haphazard way. (I know because I live in Quebec and I've received their ridiculous calls.) Second, IMHO, the Liberals are far better placed to use the polling information to present their message.

[i say that because IMV, regionalism lies at the heart of Canadian federal politics. Not ideology.]

----

It may make more sense for the "Canadian Left" to unite but I don't think the Liberals or NDP are prepared to do this right now. Maybe, after another Harper majority in 2015, this Liberal Democratic Party will have birth - but not before.

In any case, Leftists always argue among themselves and in some ways, it's better that there are two parties.

But will the NDP supercede the Liberals?

There's a political vacuum in Quebec at the moment and I don't see the NDP filling it in the long term. Vegas got elected once, but she will not get re-elected. In 2011, the NDP did no better in English Canada than it typically does. The NDP is now the Official Opposition because Quebecers are fed up of this National Question debate. They voted NDP because it was the best alternative to hearing more of the federalist/sovereigntist diatribe. God knows how they'll vote in 2015.

Harper is no Pierre Trudeau nor even a Mackenzie King. IOW, I just mean that the federal Liberals can defeat Harper without joining the NDP but to do this, they need a fundraising mechanism based on many small contributions and they need to poll to find out where and who their potential voters are.

In simple terms, there are millions of Canadians willing to give $50 to the federal Liberal Party and vote Liberal in the next election. In the next four years, the Liberal Party has to find out who these people are.

Edited June 18, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

It does that.

Huh? The federal Liberal Party knows who to cajole, and where, and in what way, for money? For a vote? I beg to differ.

Here's just a start on the problem:

In a nutshell, what went wrong is that Mr. Graves created state-of-the-art methodology to effectively random survey the entire voting-age population. In doing so, he drew in a big segment of potential voters who use cellphones only – 15 per cent of the total, double the percentage in 2008. This segment of the voting-age population has been either excluded or underrepresented in conventional polling methodology. They tend to be younger and to belong to the more than 50 per cent of the electorate under the age of 45 who don't vote.

Thus his nose count was accurate. But his forecast was off, because someone who says he will vote Liberal but doesn't vote can't be assigned the same weight as someone who says she will vote Conservative and does, indeed, vote Conservative.

G&M

Sorry, Smallc. By all accounts, Ignatieff was the guy - another Trudeau - and he didn't need polls or fund-raising schemes. (At least, Obama understands that broad-based fund-raising is the future of modern democracies.)

----

My argument here goes well beyond polling at the level of Graves. As I said in the OP, the Liberals should know how many people in Poll 142 of Calgary South are opposed to abortion, or how many (and who) are sending their kids to French immersion.

Edited June 18, 2011 by August1991

[Evening Star]

But will the NDP supercede the Liberals?

They have, at least for now. The question is whether they will maintain their dominant position vis-a-vis the Liberals, which is a slightly different question.

In 2011, the NDP did no better in English Canada than it typically does.

They won 44 seats outside Quebec. Prior to 2011, their record for the entire country was 43 seats in 1988. So I think it is safe to say that they did better in English Canada than they typically do. (By the way, that number is still 10 greater than the Liberal total for the whole country.)

[Smallc]

The federal Liberal Party knows who to cajole, and where, and in what way, for money? For a vote? I beg to differ.

Well they do it all the time to me. Of course, I don't give them money.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Smallc

[bloodyminded]

They have, at least for now. The question is whether they will maintain their dominant position vis-a-vis the Liberals, which is a slightly different question.

They won 44 seats outside Quebec. Prior to 2011, their record for the entire country was 43 seats in 1988. So I think it is safe to say that they did better in English Canada than they typically do. (By the way, that number is still 10 greater than the Liberal total for the whole country.)

True, and I don't know how the rumour got started that they had insignificant support outside Quebec. Seats aside, their popularity rose quicker and more profoundly than did the Conservatives.'

[Keepitsimple]

True, and I don't know how the rumour got started that they had insignificant support outside Quebec. Seats aside, their popularity rose quicker and more profoundly than did the Conservatives.'

Kind of - sort of....maybe. The NDP gained 7 seats outside Quebec. The Conservatives gained 28. It was a miracle in Quebec and the implosion of the Liberals that led to the "Orange Wave" but it was a tsunami in Quebec and only a mild ripple in the ROC.

[Molly]

I'm not really in with your premise, August.

I agree that the LPC is badly behind the 8-ball in terms of fundraising-have been for a long, long time- but I would submit that, within the confines of funding and membership limitations, they do know 'how many folks in poll 142 of CSouth are opposed to abortion', etc.

And they weren't afraid to use a professional bagman 20 years ago. (Bad idea anyway, imo.) I don't suppose they've forgotten or given that idea up. I'd be more inclined to suspect they may have lost some of that intimate information-base through untying fund-raising from polling/recruitment.

I'll clearly assert this, though: The LPC has targetted thoughtful membershipand rational votes- has consistently made appeals to the head- while the CPC has addressed the lowest common denominator, keeping the goal (money and votes) in mind, regardless of the morality or the rationality foundation for recieving them. The LPC may stand correctly accused of grossly overestimating the intelligence of voters.

[eyeball]

I like him too, but truth be told, in 04 I briefly flirted with the idea of Stronach, thinking she’d be more electable and garner more undecided voters over to the party……But I agree, Harper reminds me of my accountant, nothing flashy but gets the job done....I also liked Manning & Stanfield……never trusted Mulroney……

Ironically, Harper trusted Mulroney enough that he was one of his closest advisers on his march to absolute power.