They're Going Neg

The Green Party rolls out an attack ad...on attack ads.



In my mind, this is a great ad. Likely the best so far of the pre-election cycle.

It's well produced but, as the Tories have shown, production value isn't the most important trait of a political ad. The key is to have a the right message targeted at the right audience.

With the environment fading as an issue since the downturn, the Greens' target audience right now is very much the "disillusioned voter". The people who want to "send a message" or vote "none of the above". This add plays directly to them, and captures the feeling of disgust they have towards the major parties.

There are, however, two possible problems with this campaign.

The first is that I doubt a "politics sucks" message is going to motivate Canadians to go to the polls and take the time to vote. There is a twinge of hope at the end of the commercial, but I wonder if it will be enough.

The other, larger, problem is that the Greens are reportedly spending less than $10,000 on the ad buy. These ads have great potential to go viral - but as a viral campaign, it's primarily going to reach Canadians who are already engaged in the political process. To reach disillusioned voters, you really need to be advertising on mainstream TV shows.

As I said, it's a great ad. But it will only do the Greens any good if their target audience actually sees it.

This Week in Alberta - It's Miller Time!

Judy Wilson is out and Rick Miller is in as David Swann's new Chief of Staff. I don't know Judy well, but I welcome this move.

I got to know Rick when he was my MLA for the two years I spent up in Edmonton, and I could immediately tell he was is a guy who has political sense oozing out of his ears. As a former caucus whip and party president, he understands the party and he understands politics so I expect him to steer Swann in a more pragmatic direction than the new ALP leader might otherwise be inclined to wander.


IN OTHER NEWS...

My good friend Rob Anders will be facing, yet another, nomination battle. There were some wild schenanigans last time around so hopefully this turns into a fair fight - Anders was nearly knocked off by in 2004 when the vote went several ballots, so defeating him isn't impossible.

Calgary lawyer Donna Kennedy-Glans, who has started a campaign to vie for Calgary West MP Rob Anders' Conservative nomination, said today she can take whatever names Anders throws at her.

He calls her a "bona fide Liberal." She says she's been a Conservative longer than Anders.

"I fully expected he would call me something. I'm just glad he hasn't called me a feminist lawyer yet," Kennedy-Glans quipped.

"Feminist lawyer," are words Anders used in December 2003 to describe Alberta's Justice Minister Alison Redford, who was then trying to claim the federal Tory nomination from him.

ALSO...

It's not only Liberals who are considering a name change! The Alberta Greens are also mulling over a name change. In the interests of helping them out, I've taken the liberty of suggesting a few alternatives you can vote on:

What Should the Alberta Greens Call Themselves?
The Gold Party
The Purple Party
The Hot Pink Party
The Mauve Party
The Taupe Party
The Chartreuse Party
See Results

A Green Wave Sweeps Across Quebec

The latest Strategic Counsel/CTV/Globe poll raises some interesting questions - the most prominent being "why was this poll released?". Here are the not-at-all-surprising Quebec splits:

Greens 26%
Liberals 24%
Bloc 22%
CPC 17%
NDP 12%

Now, if we take these numbers at face value (ha ha...well, at least play along), there is only one conclusion to be reached: Quebecers, after flirting with Harper, Layton, and Ignatieff, have now fallen head over heels for Elizabeth May.

Therefore, in the interests of helping the Liberal Party out in Quebec, I have taken the liberty of drafting some attack lines, which could easily be turned into LPC commercials. If we act now, we may be able to stave off this Green menace!


Le Parti Vert - sérieusement?

Elizabeth May: Closet Bruins fan

A vote for the Greens is a vote for the tax-on-everything

Elizabeth May: Fraude

I hate anyone who's ever owned a pony. Don't you?

Elizabeth May: Can you really trust someone who rides a tricycle?

Elizabeth May: Can you really trust someone who liked Stephane Dion as much as she did?

Because caring about the environment is, like, so 2007


Hat Tip - FaW

Green Book

The Greens released their platform today - smartly trimming down their previous 160 page policy document to a slick 8 pages (including pictures!).

Although I know they'd disagree, from my view it appears the Greens are trying to stake out the left of the spectrum. While the Dippers have become a lot more populist and mainstream under Layton in a bid to replace the Liberals on the left, the Greens seem to be waving the flag on idealism in a bid to replace the NDP as the conscience of Canada. The NDP of old would have certainly been supportive of environmental taxes and a GST hike - not any more. A lot of the language about pulling out of NAFTA and NATO is also very retro-80s NDP.

Thursday News Round Up

1) Harper has announced he will be appointing barley farmer Bert Brown to fill a Senate vacancy. Bert Brown is, of course, famous for plowing the following phrase into his field in the 1990s: "Triple-E Senate or else...appoint me and screw the effective and equal part of it".


2) After Rona Ambrose's initial Green Plan was met with scorn and ridicule leading to her departure from the file, the Conservatives are planning to release a new and improved Green Plan which...wait for it...weakens the targets set out in their first plan. Either the Tories are trying to dampen expectations, or this is their election trigger.


3) Speaking of the environment, John Baird went before the Senate today to claim that meeting our Kyoto targets would lead to a massive recession, unemployment, sky-rocketing gas prices, the cancellation of Hockey Night in Canada, and the closing of all Tim Hortons coast to coast.


4) I don't think we'll see the Greens stand down in St. Catharines but the mere fact that some of their members are talking about not running a candidate is exactly why I thought the Dion-May deal was a strategic coup de force for the Liberals.

May I have this dance?

The big news today is the announcement that the Liberals will not run a candidate in Elizabeth May's riding which is a shocking surprise for anyone who has been living in Bolivia the past three months. Actually, calling it "Elizabeth May's riding" is charitable since it's still going to be Peter MacKay's, even with this deal.

But, regardless, it's an interesting alliance, since the Greens and Grits are giving each other some added legitimacy by doing this. From an economical sense, the Liberals stand to lose 18 grand a year from the $1.75 per vote they'd get in Central Nova (probably less since May would siphon votes off, they save the money it takes to run a campaign and they get the ginormous influx of...dozens of Green voters in Saint-Laurent–Cartierville).

So the real trade-off comes from the legitimacy aspect and I do tend to think the Liberals come out on top here, if only because it gives Dion's environmental platform an implicit vote of confidence and helps out the inevitable "vote Liberal to stop Harper" messaging we'll see the last weekend of the campaign.

The trade-off is obviously that it gives the Greens a bit more credibility. And everyone has a different opinion as to which party that hurts most.


[Coyne's got an interesting take, touching on the optics of beeing seen as moving too far left]

Green Answers - 3

Nick Nanos' blog put up the question yesterday about just how real the Greens' poll numbers are, leading to a wide range of answers. I asked the same question a while back so I figured today would be a good time to put up some of the answers.

(You can see the answers to some of the other environmental questions here and here)


3. Would Canadians actually vote for the Green Party? If so, who does that hurt the most?

Some Answers

-Green Party will get 5-10% of the vote in the next election. Probably hurts the Liberals the most as it might cost them some close seats in Ontario.

-It hurts the NDP the most as they've always been seen as the most environmentally conscious, and the Liberals the second most as they're now trying to cultivate a green image, but it hurts everybody a bit.

-The Green party will take young and urban votes away from the NDP and Liberals. It will have more of an effect on their dollars per vote financing than seats won.

-The Green Party's numbers will not change. They will only be supported by people who either a) actually care about the environment or b) are protesting the big three.

-No. (And I'll add: hahaha)


-Okay, but seriously - I say the NDP, in a perfect-storm sense when married with Jack Layton. If Ed Broadbent was leader, it would hurt the Liberals more, Dion or no Dion.

-if the Greens can't win a seat the next election (whenever that may be), with everyone talking about the environment, I don't see how they ever will.


My Take

The Greens always do better with hypothetical voters than with real ones and there's no reason to suspect that the next election won't be any different. True, they are hitting higher in the polls now than ever before, but when voting day comes, I can't see them with over 7 or 8%...which likely won't translate into any seats.

Still, they are taking votes away from someone and with politics being a zero sum game, that means someone loses when the Greens surge. In the past, studies into this showed that the Greens grabbed a lot of Conservative votes but I think that was because of Jim Harris being a Conservative and a lot of Red Tories looking for a home. Elizabeth May has quickly put her own stamp on the party such that people voting for the Greens are likely hard core environmentalists (or those casting a protest vote, in which case it doesn't really hurt anyone else since these people would be voting for the Canadian Action Party or staying home without the Greens). Given that, one imagines that any votes they drain are likely coming massively from the NDP and Liberals - probably more so from the NDP asI tend to think environmental idealists who don't care about voting for a party which can win would have left the Liberals for the Dippers a long time ago.

Thoughts?