Election Ringside: A daily exchange for The Globe and Mail between strategists Tom Flanagan, left, and John DuffyThe Globe and Mail
Election Ringside is a daily e-mail exchange for The Globe and Mail between strategists Tom Flanagan and John Duffy. Check in every weekday afternoon during the 2011 federal election campaign for their insights and opinions about the campaign as it unfolds.
From: Tom Flanagan Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011, 10:09 a.m. ET To: John Duffy Subject: Election Ringside
Hi John,
Initial debate reactions suggest Tuesday night's advantage went to Stephen Harper. Pundits and editorialists were saying either that the results were neutral or that Mr. Harper had won. David Olive, of all people, writing in the Toronto Red Star, went on at length about how well Mr. Harper, and how badly opposition leaders Michael Ignatieff, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe had done.
Flash polling results also seem decisive. A large Ipsos-Reid sample that didn't include Quebec had 42 Harper, 25 Layton, 23 Ignatieff. Leger had Harper 37, Ignatieff 21. These are basically the same results, i.e, that Mr. Harper was the big winner.
I think what happened was that Mr. Ignatieff was too personal, too negative, too indignant. That set up a striking contrast with Mr. Harper, who remained preternaturally self-possessed, spoke directly to viewers, and calmly repeated his major talking points.
Of course, it's all a strange kind of show biz. Mr. Harper in person can be far more entertaining - quick-witted and mordantly funny. I wish I knew Mr. Ignatieff personally, but I have read some of his books, and I'm sure he's more balanced and thoughtful than he could display in the outrage mode that he thought was suitable for the debate. It's all a question of selecting the strategy that works best for the particular format, and I think Harper got it right last night.
From: John Duffy Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 10:53 a.m. ET To: Tom Flanagan
Tom,
I won't spend too much time trying to disrupt the Conservative end-zone dancing. The Prime Minister had a good outing. Lots of folks, even you Tom, the " Trotsky of the Conservatives" as you describe yourself, are saying that the Beloved General Secretary - sorry, Prime Minister - Harper gave a strong progress report on his five-year plan. I needn't add to the chorus.
So let me say a couple of things that should be voiced and may not be elsewhere. Mr. Ignatieff was vigorous, passionate and articulate, creating some powerful moments which defined the Liberals' intended ballot question more crisply than has occurred to date in this campaign. He was certainly more inclined to the attack than I had predicted he would be. But that may not have hurt him much except among the National Political Theatre Critics Circle TM (that's basically folks like us) who watched the whole two hours and wondered where the positive stuff had gone to.
As well, there's no doubt that Mr. Ignatieff performed well above the expectations that had been set through the Conservative negative advertising barrage. That will help him. Moreover, polls (including this new one) were showing tightening in vote intention heading into the debates.
Put all of that together, and the kind of mass stay-away by Liberal voters that shaped the 2008 election results seems farther away now than ever. I agree with you that it is too early to tell what the debate result will look like, but my sense is that another of the mountain ranges the Liberals have to get over got successfully cleared last night.
From: Tom Flanagan Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011, 1:06 p.m. ET To: John Duffy
What's wrong with Canadian polling? Ekos has the Conservatives ahead by 5 points, COMPAS by 21, with other pollsters spread out in between. Anyone can find a poll to prove almost anything. I see only one solution: nationalize the industry and turn it into a federal Department of Information under the control of a reliable and trustworthy minister. The market has clearly failed.
Slightly more seriously, the translation of debate results into electoral standing is never direct and straightforward. A debate is just a moment in time, and lots more moments are still to come. When I was managing campaigns, I always wanted to seem poised to win, but not quite there yet. That's actually where the Conservative are, in my opinion - within reach of a majority, but not quite there yet. So, since the Liberal threshold for victory as they define it is much lower, they may also seem poised to win.
From: John Duffy Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 1:14 p.m. ET To: Tom Flanagan
Nationalize the Commanding Heights of the Body Politic! Onward to the full socialization of the means of testing public opinion! Bombard the call centres!
Tom, you do a frightfully convincing Bolshevik impression, especially for a Tory. So let me try to be equally non-partisan, as it were. Once again, we're touching on the variable-victory concept. And indeed, the back-and-forth about the shape of the next parliament made for some of last night's most compelling material.
I expect we'll see greater attention paid to the subject Wednesday night en français. After all, Quebeckers aren't as hostile to the Bloc, tend to see co-operation amongst federal parties as more normal and - I think - have a bit of a stronger grasp of the Constitution than some of the audience of Tuesday night's debate.
We'll see if the different milieu produces a freer exchange about this very important question. Meanwhile, let's each claim victory of one sort or another for our fearless leaders Tuesday night, and of course for the toiling masses they represent.
Tom Flanagan is professor of political science at the University of Calgary and a former Conservative campaign manager. John Duffy is founder of StrategyCorp and a former adviser to prime minister Paul Martin.