Sunday, November 20, 2011

Negative 3rd party ads didn't buy an election

In today's Toronto Sun, John Snobelen writes:
But the Working Families ads go beyond the normal limits. The nasty (why are teacher unions, of all people, always so nasty?) ads we all endured during this election were not intended to make a point or raise a policy. They were designed to kneecap Hudak. The unions did the heavy lifting for the Liberals during the campaign.
I'll say it one more time. Hudak's campaign managers *kneecapped* Hudak.

Blame unions, 3rd party spending, blame all you want. Hudak deserved to lose that election because he never said what he would do differently or how he would do it. If people are going to vote for *change* they want to see plans, not platitudes. We didn't get that. We got vitriolic ads from the PC campaign, we got promises to keep some of the most contentious, expensive, stupid Liberal programs (all day kindergarten) and not much else.

I'd love to say the union ads pushed Hudak over the edge because I think their form of propoganda is wrong . . . but Hudak crashed and burned all on his own. If the ads had been effective at all, I think we'd have seen a Liberal majority.

So long as conservatives look outside their ranks for people and things to blame for this major disappointment, they will never find a positive way to move forward . . . the best defence is not always a good offence . . . sometimes, it's just having a plan and executing it. The PC Party had a plan, or so they said. They failed to execute. Their fault. Now . . . pick up what's left and move on.

canadianna

4 comments:

Joanne (BLY) said...

Well they did have some positive ideas and plans but it all seemed to get lost in the shuffle.

Communication strategies must be improved for next election.

And very little effort to engage bloggers which I found disappointing.

joseph said...

Hudak had another problem. Candidates running under the PC banner because the liberal nomination wasn't available.
London-Fanshawe was a prime example of a career politician well connected to the "progressive" set and then when asked policy questions, reverted to qualifying their conditional conservatism.
Cheryl Miller at during the election, made a point that she wasn't anyway affillated with conservatives that agreed with the Tea party. She didn't even realize that the tea referred to "taxed enough already".
If that is the calibre of candidate the PC party attracts, its no wonder Hudak spent so much time trying to explain himself and qualifying his platform. Most of the flack was coming from within the party.
If ever there was a reason to purge the party, this is it.
One way is to change the party name to Conservative.
That way nobody has to explain that they aren't "that kind of conservative".

Anonymous said...

Agree 100%. The pathetic excuses made by too many Ontario PC supporters for this recent loss, blaming everyone and everything but a terribly run campaign, make me worried that they won't do any better next time.

The election was ours to win, but the Ontario PC party gave the citizens nothing to vote for.

Joanne (BLY) said...

Yes Joesph made a good point about the 'Liberal' candidates running for the PCs.

Too many Red Tories, that's for sure.