Alberta Votes Day 19: The Morning After

The hype machines were in overdrive for yesterday's Alberta Leaders Debate, but the outcome was similar to most debates: steady but unspectacular performances from all the candidates, with the end result nothing more than re-enforcing existing attitudes. The post-debate Ipsos poll bears that out; when asked who won, 37% opted for Smith, 28% for Redford, 13% for Sherman, and 10% for Mason - similar to the party support levels in most recent polls.

Given she's leading the polls 10 days before the vote, a messy draw was likely good enough for Danielle Smith. If you'd never heard of Danielle Smith before, you'd likely be impressed by her performance - but the woman has been more over hyped than Tim Tebow, and I find her less likable over 90 minutes than in photo ops and sound bytes. There was nothing Laytonesque in her performance, but she gets marks for avoiding the "inside baseball" stuff more than Redford, and framing issues in a way casual voters can understand and relate to.

Alison Redford found herself under attack all night long, even from one of the moderators, Vassy Kepelos, who asked Redford a triple-barrelled question that amounted to "how could anyone in their right mind trust you?". But Redford held her own against each attack, looking very much like a Premier. In most elections, that would be more than enough for the PC leader, but Redford needed to make Danielle Smith look scary, and there was nothing scary about the mostly cheerful Smith who talked about her ability to work with the NDP, and spun Danny Dollars as a way to help the poorest Albertans. Redford failed to land a good soundbyte on conscience rights, and wasted far too much time attacking Smith over trivial insider issues.

Considering Michael Ignatieff made absolutely no headway going after Harper on Carson, Contempt, and Corruption during last May's debate, I don't know what Redford hoped to accomplish by continuing to press Smith over two year old floor crossings. The details are murky enough that it's not a clear cut ethical breach, and even if it were, I can't imagine it would shift a single vote outside of the two ridings in question. With all the things Danielle Smith has written or said in her lifetime, and all the extremist positions her party holds, Redford's inability to land a punch was disappointing.

Raj Sherman was the least polished of the four leaders, and the delivery of his over rehearsed sound bytes was often clunky. Despite the poor style marks, he scored well on content, striking a nice balance between pointing out the conservative nature of the PCs and selling his own party's platform. As expected, he pivoted to Health Care whenever possible, but Sherman held his own on other issues. He did enough to stop the bleeding to the PCs, but I'm skeptical we was compelling enough to win back Redford Liberals.

Brian Mason was the most seasoned debater on stage and looked the most at ease. He played all the NDP greatest hits, promising "results for people" and telling anecdotes of his conversations with Albertans. The only thing missing was a story about him taking Andrea Horwath's son to the emergency room. I suspect a lot of Albertans liked the Brian Mason they saw last night, but I can't imagine he moved many votes. He was short on specifics, and his overall "pro-tax, anti-oilsands" message won't move him far beyond the NDP base.


So where do we go from here?

The debate was a missed opportunity for Redford, leaving her no option but to blanket the Alberta airwaves with anti-Wildrose attack ads. The PC dynasty may be on the way out, but it's going to go out with a bang rather than a whimper.

Alberta Votes Day 18: Debate Night in Edmonton

More often than not, the Alberta leader's debate is a mere formality, intended to create a vaneer of democracy in a province where elections tend to be meaningless. It's barely worth watching, because even if someone delivers the mythic "knock out punch", it doesn't affect the election outcome. Hell, had Ed Stelmach literally gone over to Kevin Taft and punched him in the face last debate, it wouldn't have changed much.

From 1997 to 2004, Ralph Klein's debate prep was never more intensive than taking a swig of whiskey before going on stage. In 2008, one of the debate questions was literally "how come none of you are charismatic?", to which Brian Mason gave a memorable - albeit unemotional - "my wife thinks I'm charismatic" rebuttal.

This time, it's different.

Alberta is in the midst of its first competitive election in 19 years, and tonight's debate could very well tip the scales. Three of the four leaders are rookies, and newspaper reporters routinely get Brian Mason's name wrong in stories, so it's not like he's a household name anywhere outside of the Mason household. For all intents and purposes, this will be the first and only chance for the leaders to make an impression.

Global will be airing the debate on the tube and online from 6:30 to 8 mountain time. If you're looking for a good time, the National Post offers a drinking game - for a simpler version, simply take a shot of Big Rock every time you hear the words "conscience rights", "41 years", or "money for nothing".

I'll be live blogging as long as I stay sober, and the following are what I'll be looking for from the party leaders:



She may never have run for an office higher than School Board Trustee, but Danielle Smith enters this debate as the favourite. She's photogenic, well spoken, and knows a thing or two about how to act in front of a TV camera.

Of course, most voters have likely gotten to know Smith through carefully orchestrated photo ops and sound bytes. Her challenge is therefore to remain likable for the full hour and a half. If she can accomplish that, the substance of the debate will be largely meaningless. So long as Smith doesn't look like the extremist Redford paints her out to be, the election is hers for the taking.



Alison Redford's gutsy debate performance 3 days before the PC leadership vote, in the wake of her mother's passing, likely won her that contest. It will take an equally impressive performance tonight for her to save the 41 year old PC dynasty (41 years - take a drink!).

Unlike Smith, who can win on style marks, Redford will need good content scores to take this one. And therein lies the problem. She must paint the Wildrose Party as extremists...for holding the same views as many in her caucus. She must woe Liberal and NDP voters worried about Smith, all the while reassuring conservatives she bleeds blue. She must present herself as an agent of change, yet make the case that Alberta can't afford the type of change the Wildrose Party is offering.

She will be forced to defend the PC record, but must brush off attacks over PC scandal. She will make the case for increased spending on health care and education, but will warn that Danielle Smith's numbers don't add up.

Redford is juggling a dozen balls in the air. If she pulls it off, she's going to impress a lot of people, but it's far more likely they'll all come crashing down on live TV.



Raj Sherman is likely the least polished of the four leaders, but he does project a certain amount of genuineness - especially when talking about Health Care. Expect Sherman to stay in his wheelhouse tonight, using Health Care to define himself (as a former ER doctor) and attack the PCs (over corruption and mismanagement). If you're placing bets, there's a 1 in 15 chance he'll show up to the debate wearing scrubs.

With Redford looking to her right, Sherman is unlikely to face the same "tax and spend" and "NEP" attacks as his predecessors. The challenge for this former Tory MLA lies in recapturing the Liberal base, as most polls have Liberal support cut in half from their 1997-2008 levels. With this in mind, he should not be afraid to rally progressives behind the Liberals' "tax the rich to pay for health and education" platform.

The risk he faces is that many Liberals may reluctantly back the evil empire, to stop the Wildrosers. For all intents and purposes, any attack on Smith tonight is a de facto attack on himself.



Brian Mason faces the least pressure of any leader, since the rise of the Wildrose does little to alter his message. He doesn't have the same balancing act as the other leaders, and can speak directly to his base of Edmontonians who get off on recycling.

Mason will therefore read from the traditional NDP "kitchen table" cookbook, arguing the other three parties are all the same. The over/under on the number of times he refers to Raj Sherman as "a former conservative" has been set at 4.5 for the night.

The Morning After

Last night was the lone televised debate of the Ontario election campaign. With the vote too close to call, a lot was riding on it, and after last night...

...not a heck of a lot changed. I have a hard time seeing how anyone would actually change their mind as a result of last night's debate, and the Ipsos flash poll largely confirms that.

After all, if you're like me and you like Dalton McGuinty, you liked what you saw. While the opposition focused on buzzwords and empty anecdotes ("Gary the accountant tells me he lost his job because of the HST"), McGuinty made his case his facts and figures. He responded to attacks, defended his record, and talked about his plans. He looked and sounded like was a grown up - some might even say a Premier.

That's not to say it was a masterful performance we will all rave about years from now. He fought much of the debate on weaker ground - there was a lot more talk about taxes and energy prices than about Health Care and education. He took some hits. But that's the life of an incumbent - the important thing is, he held his ground.

Hudak was the leader who most exceeded my expectations, but that likely says more about my expectations than about his performance. I liked his "big screen TV" and "lemonade stand" metaphors, and he showed real emotion when talking about his daughter's experience in the Health Care system. If you were scoring the debate on points, Hudak landed the most blows. His "nobody believes you anymore" soundbite will probably lead off most clip packages.

However, the one knock on Hudak's performance is a biggie. Quite simply, he looked and sounded like an opposition leader, not a Premier. He mentioned "Changebook" and his "5 point jobs plan" a few times, but there were only scattered descriptions of specific platform promises. He went after McGuinty at every opportunity - even when asked directly about what bold ideas he had for Ontario. It was a good performance, but not one that screamed "Premier-in-waiting".

And then there's Andrea Horwath. Horwath had the most to gain from this debate, and she likely helped herself out a bit. She was likable, and played those tried and true NDP hits - "hike up corporate taxes", "results for people", "putting people first".

Personally, I wasn't moved. She talked about the difficulty of balancing a family budget as a mom...on her lowly six-figure MPP salary. She talked about the awful treatment her son received at a Hamilton hospital...and later admitted the story was more "illustration" than fact. She told a story about a woman who gave her a big hug because she loved the NDP platform so much.

Personally, I found it all manipulative and lacking substance. But it will play to Horwath's base, and may even rope in a few undecided votes.

Add it all up, and after 90 minutes of debating, we're no closer to figuring out who will win on October 6th.

Ontario Debates

No one knows who will win the Ontario election, two of the three leaders remain virtual unknowns, and the campaign still lacks a ballot question. Yet somehow, without warning, Ontario finds itself just 9 sleeps away from Voting Day.

So tonight's debate will be important.

I'll be live-blogging the festivities starting at 6:30, and will offer my thoughts on why Dalton McGuinty won afterwards.

For those just tuning in tonight, here's a look at the players:

Dalton McGuinty: McGuinty has taken his lumps over the past eight years, and was written off by most pundits just a few months ago. Voters wanted change, Ontario's economy was sputtering, and the HST was about to claim its second victim. Yet here we are, closing in on E-Day, and "The Taxman" is tied with Tim Hudak.

McGuinty has looked cool and been on message since day 1. He has played up his "experienced leadership" through tough economic times, and cautioned voters against risking Ontario's stable economic recovery on unproven leaders. The man is one blue sweater vest away from being mistaken for Stephen Harper. I know Liberals will squirm at those words, but I mean it in the nicest way possible.


Tim Hudak: The PC campaign has focused almost exclusively on two isses - taxes, and Hudak's BBQ skills. While most voters concerned about these two issues will no doubt vote PC on October 6th, Hudak's set list hasn't moved much beyond this (with the exception of his controversial "foreign workers" jab). Given McGuinty hasn't actually promised to raise taxes, and is likely a fine BBQer himself, Hudak will need to show he's more than a tax cut sound machine tonight, if he wants to win.

Hudak always struck me as a bit of a Stockwell Day type, so he's the odds-on favourite to use a prop during tonight's debate.


Andrea Horwath: Most Ontarians can't pronounce her name and wouldn't recognize her on the street, yet they'll still tell you they like Andrea Horwath.

Being liked and unknown means Horwath has the most riding on tonight. A strong performance, and it's not impossible for her to pull off an "accidental" win on election night à la Bob Rae. If she Iggies the debate, all the positive Jack Layton feelings in the world won't be enough to keep her in the mid-20s.

Horwath will be standing centre stage tonight, which is appropriate, since all eyes will be on her.

Et Le But!

I've only had a chance to watch bits and pieces of last night's debate, where the leaders exchanged hockey metaphors as freely as hockey players exchange body checks. So far be it from me to try and make sense of who won or lost, especially when the clips I saw featured a charming Scottish translator voicing Jack Layton.

So here's a sampling of what regular CalgaryGrit commenter, and genuinely undecided voter, Jacques Beau Vert thought:

Layton: In terms of surprising me out of my apathy, I thought Jack Layton won. His attitude was best all night, enthusiastic and feisty but never out of control. If I beamed down today and didn't know the NDP (and mistakenly believed the people here were able to vote for their executive branch), I'd say he won.

Duceppe: Duceppe was angry and lost his composure (he certainly got mad and lost his cool and expressed himself with angry conviction - so if you're a separatist, he won). Also I think he's deluded in his separatist ambitions, and it came across tonight.

Ignatieff: His answers were weak and uninspiring and canned. His constant repetition of "democracy in Canada" was dreary. However his "It's 2011, Mr. Duceppe. 2011. It's 2011" act was a highlight. He didn't go far enough to make a very strong impression on anyone's ideas about the federation, yet it was good "theatre", which is what "debates" are fought on on TV.

Harper: Harper was great! I know, many Liberals and NDPers see "a phony robot", but if I beamed in from another planet tonite, I'd have seen a Walt Disney family movie Central Casting recruit for "Prime Minister of a Westminster-style Parliamentary System". I guess that really, he "looked the most like a Prime Minister" - so, perhaps he was the winner after all.

That's one review. Le Devoir offers their thoughts en francais here.

The poll numbers coming out of this suggest little movement, but indicate Ignatieff may have helped himself the most. Via Ipsos, the pre-debate expectation of who would win and the post-debate judgement:

Duceppe 31% / 42%
Harper 19% / 12%
Layton 16% / 19%
Ignatieff 15% / 22%

More importantly, on the Best Prime Minister question, Ignatieff went from 10 behind Harper before the debate to one ahead after. So, on that score, mission accomplished. From what I saw in the debate, Ignatieff did a much better job selling the Liberal alternative Wednesday than Tuesday. He won the exchange that got the most media play ("It's 2011"), so he came out of this one quite well.

Layton didn't improve his stock but, from that same poll, it's clear he's the most popular leader in Quebec right now, and the debate probably served to re-enforce that feeling.

Harper showed again how frustratingly on message he has been this campaign. During the aforementioned Ignatieff-Duceppe exchange, he calmly cut in, shook his head, and mused about how difficult it would be for the other leaders to agree in a coalition government. Well, yes. That's why there would never be a coalition. But, his point was made - if you're sick of all these elections, debates, and bickering, then give me a majority and a 4 year reprieve of all these unpleasant side effects of democracy.

I hate to comment on Duceppe, because I know Quebecers have a much different attitude towards him than I do. It's an emotional connection - they see him as the Quebec's guard dog, there to protect them.

So I'm not at all surprised to see the instant polls showing he won. But, to me, Duceppe looked like a man who has lost his raison d'etre. He prattled on about the 2004 coalition deal that, quite frankly, no one cares about. He demanded to know why the other parties wouldn't ask Quebec to sign the constitution, even though he later admitted he didn't want to see Quebec sign the constitution - he wanted them to separate. As I said after the English debates, he's an angry man without a reason to be angry.

Sadly, that's it for the debates, though I'd love to see more, be it with 2, 3, 4, or 5 participants. Over ten million Canadians watched at least some the English debates and, thanks to some stickhandling on the scheduling, I'm sure a few million more tuned in last night. Clearly, the interest is there, and it's a shame we won't get another opportunity to size our leaders up.

Post Debate

And now we spin.

I'm not going to call a winner on this one, because it's very difficult for someone who eats and breathes politics to predict how people tuning in for the first time will absorb what they saw. Often it comes down to body language, or one toss away comment on an issue we all assume is inconsequential but just happens to connect to the person watching.

I do think this debate was a lot more exciting for political junkies than for most voters - at one point there was a 10 minute stretch when the leaders argued over the 2004 coalition letter, proportional representation, and the mechanism by which the House of Commons gives confidence to the Prime Minister. I'd wager these issues aren't keeping many Canadians up at night. On this count, I think all four leaders got too caught up in Ottawa bubble squabbles and failed to connect with viewers as much as they could have.

So rather than score the debate, I'll present reasons why each of the leaders won and lost.

Why Stephen Harper won: Harper takes it on style and substance. He looked directly at the camera, making a connection with viewers. He kept his cool. He talked about the need for a stable government during the economic recovery.

Even though we all expected him to go on a coalition rampage, he stayed above the fray and stayed positive. After all, why attack your opponents when you can have your attack ads do it for you? At one point, he actually had the gall to tell the Just Visiting guy that "I don't think these personal attacks back and forth are very productive".

Beyond all that, Harper won by not losing. The opposition needed a "game changer", "a knock out blow", or another sports analogy (a "golden snitch"?) to throw him off his game. They didn't get that.

Why Stephen Harper lost: It's all very good to say Harper won by not losing, but any way you add up the points, Harper lost. He was on the defensive the entire night, and the issues discussed were not ones he wants this election to be about - contempt, G20 waste, corporate tax cuts, fighter jets. To use yet another analogy, you can't win when you're in your own zone the whole game.

Why Michael Ignatieff won: I suspect the pundits will not be as kind to Ignatieff as the public. After all, the pundits formed their expectations of Ignatieff around what they've seen from him on the campaign trail where he has, by all accounts, performed well. The public, however, have built their expectations on what they've seen in attack ads. Short of announcing the Liberal's National Puppy Genocide program (paid for by a new tax!), Ignatieff was going to look better than the Conservative caricature.

Ignatieff sounded forceful and confident in his attacks on Harper. He showed passion, pounding the podium when talking about Canadian troops. He highlighted Harper's democratic abuses, then drew out issues that differentiated him from the Prime Minister - corporate tax cuts, fighter jets and prisons on one side...and family friendly Liberal policies on the other.

Why Michael Ignatieff lost: Sure, he attacked. He looked like a great opposition leader. But he attacked hardest on Harper's contempt for Parliament, something few voters care a great deal about. And if they do, they assume the Liberals wouldn't be any different.

Moreover, he did nothing to present a clear Liberal alternative - there was no reason given to voters on why they should vote Liberal. Ignatieff did do a good job on the Learning Passport - he identified a need and explained the Liberal alternative. Twice. But there were only scant mentions of the other Family Pack items, and nothing to convince voters he had a plan and was ready to govern.

Why Jack Layton won: These debates aren't about what leaders say, they're about how they sound. And Layton, as usual, struck the right tone. He was, by far, the least scripted of the leaders. He sounded genuine. He cracked jokes and looked like he was having a good time. He talked to viewers like they were real people.

Most importantly, he talked about the issues that actual matter. He identified solutions and offered NDP policies that addressed them.

Why Layton lost: Layton started strong, but faded down the stretch. His "man you've changed" routine against Harper was tiresome, and he sounded like your grandpa trying to be cool when he talked about "bling" and "#hashtagfail". He did nothing to differentiate himself from Ignatieff this debate and was on the defensive during their one-on-one over Afghanistan.

Duceppe: It's impossible to spin a win or loss for Duceppe so I'll just give my synopsis. As usual, he had some good zingers. But much like 2008, he looked like someone who was angry with no real reason to be angry. In 2004 and 2006 when he had AdScam to fuel his indignation, but Duceppe didn't have an issue to punch on. Quite honestly, it would have been a better debate had he not been invited.

Debate Prep

I'll be live-blogging the debate tonight, so tune in here at 7 pm Eastern for kick-off. Until then, here's everything you need to know to get ready:

FORMAT: Gone is the free for all PM-pile on. Gone is the round table. Instead, the focus will be on a series of one-on-one debates between the participants. The good news? This means we get to see Harper and Ignatieff go at it. The bad news? Half the one-on-ones will feature Gilles Duceppe, a man 95% of those watching the debates aren't able to vote for.

Once again, Steve Paiken will moderate and, once again, Paiken will do an outstanding job.

EXPERIENCE: By my count, this will be Duceppe's 7th English leaders debate, and the 5th for Harper and Layton. They're all pros, and we kind of know what to expect from them.

While Ignatieff was tested to varying degrees in the 2006 Liberal leadership race, there's a difference between taking questions from Hedy Fry on infrastructure and going all in against the Prime Minister. No one knows what to expect from Ignatieff, which means the pundits will be scrutinizing his performance more so than for the other leaders.

EXPECTATIONS: When I asked readers of this blog who the instant-polls would show winning the debate, the result was a split decision: Ignatieff 39%, Layton 24%, Harper 22%, Duceppe 10%

Here, as with the media, the expectation seems to be that expectations on Ignatieff are so low that he will win by virtue of exceeding expectations. Of course, this may have raised expectations on Ignatieff, making it more difficult for him to exceed expectations. Or the opposite.

WHAT HARPER NEEDS TO DO: Keep his cool. It's that simple. The one-on-one format could lead to some heated exchanges, and that's the danger zone for Harper.

HOW THE CONSERVATIVES WILL SPIN IT: "Despite the coalition gang-up, Harper stayed above the fray and looked Prime Ministerial."

WHAT IGNATIEFF NEEDS TO DO: In his Globe article yesterday, John Ibbitson says it will all come down to the 6-minute exchange between Ignatieff and Harper. It very well might. But I think the rest of the debate will be just as important. For most voters, this will be the first time they'll see Ignatieff outside of Tory attack ads. It will certainly be the first time they'll judge his suitability for the office of Prime Minister. He doesn't need to leave Harper stammering. He needs to look and sound like a Prime Minister (whatever that means), and make the case that his vision of Canada is better than Harper's.

HOW THE LIBERALS WILL SPIN IT: "This is the turning point of the campaign. Ignatieff had Harper on the ropes over the Auditor General's G20 bombshell."

WHAT LAYTON NEEDS TO DO: For all our jokes about "kitchen tables", Jack always comes across well in these debates - he sounds genuine and does a great job connecting NDP policies directly to voters. This time, I think Jack will need to be a bit more feisty in the one-on-one exchanges - the last thing he wants is for the debate's defining moment to be a Harper-Ignatieff confrontation.

HOW THE NDP WILL SPIN IT: "Jack Layton took on Stephen Harper and won."

WHAT DUCEPPE NEEDS TO DO: Show up sober. He really has nothing to lose.

HOW THE BLOC WILL SPIN IT: "Anyone have an update on whether Pacioretty has been cleared to skate yet?"

HOW THE MEDIA WILL SPIN IT: "There was no knock-out punch."

WHO WILL WIN?: The media will crown a winner. Myself, and every blogger out there will crown a winner. We'll find out 4 days later we were all wrong.

DEBATE BINGO: Click here for your card, to play along at home.

Debate BINGO

Since a debate drinking game is just too risky, with a little help from LynninTO, I present your BINGO card for tonight:

May Day

Sources say Elizabeth May won't be allowed into the debates this time around.

Personally, I feel May did little more than take up air time in 2008 so I don't have a problem with this decision. The flip side is that she's now going to take up a ton of air time between now and then due to the predictable outrage over her exclusion.

The debate we get about the Greens' participation in the debates every election shows why we need a firm set of guidelines on how debates are run in Canada. Right now, the only criteria being used seems to be having a seat in the House, but that strikes me as a rather arbitrary rule. I mean, was Blair Wilson really the Greens' ticket to the debates in 2008? This was a candidate elected as a Liberal, booted from the party in the midst of an Elections Canada investigation, who joined the Greens a few weeks before the election. If Helena Guergis joined the Pirate Party today would the Pirates qualify for the debates?

What I'd like to see would be a more far reaching set of criteria. How about a point system along the lines of:

5 * MPs elected last election + 5 * Current MPS + number of candidates in upcoming election + number of votes in previous campaign / 10,000

Anyone with over 500 points gets a spot in the debate. We can certainly play with the math or we can set benchmarks parties need to reach, but the point is we need to remove the power from backroom negotiations between the broadcasters and parties. Having firm guidelines would spare us from repeating the debate debate every election.

And while we're at it, how about trying out some of the other changes to the way we run debates I suggested back in 2009?

Les Reviews Sont In

UPDATE: The Globe runs down the french media reviews.


I'm usually way off base on this things, but they do match what I was thinking watching the debate. The obvious disclaimer is that these post-debate polls rarely tell the full story - Harper won the '04 debate but it marked the begining of his tail spin. But the news is good for Dion today.


CROP

Most Convincing
Duceppe 33%
Dion 30%
Layton 15%
Harper 12%
May 2%

Least Convincing
Harper 46%
May 32%
Layton 9%
Dion 6%
Duceppe 5%

Did Your Opinion of the Parties Improve or Worsen?
Liberals: 45% improved, 10% worsened
NDP: 33% improved, 4% worsened
Green: 37% improved, 8% worsened
Bloc: 21% improved, 8% worsened
Tories: 9% improved, 29% worsened

So, the CROP summary is: Duceppe did great but everyone expected him to, Layton was good but didn't really grab anyone, Harper sucked, and Dion gained the most of anyone.


IPSOS

Winner
Dion 40%
Duceppe 24%
Harper 16%
Layton 11%
May 1%

Most Prime Ministerial
Dion 36% (!)
Harper 31%
Duceppe 17%
Layton 12%
May 1%

Did Your Opinion of the Leaders Improve or Worsen?
Dion: 67% improved, 11% worsened
Layton: 55% improved, 7% worsened
Duceppe: 41% improved, 11% worsened
May: 42% improved, 24% worsened
Harper: 14% improved, 53% worsened

Debate Night

Post-Debate Thoughts

First off - I like the format. The leaders got a chance to explain themselves and still got to mix things up a bit. However, I do agree with Coyne that they really need to replace the French and English debates with a series of bilingual ones, because this was really "the Quebec debate" rather than "the french language debate".

As for the participants...


Elizabeth May reminded me a lot of 2004 Jack Layton - very much the attack dog. She was forceful and showed some personality, but her attacks were mostly ineffective cheap shots ("you're a liar!" "your plan is a fraud"). I don't think I learned much about the Green Party or was given a compelling reason to vote for them over the Liberals, NDP, or Bloc. But Elizabeth May seemed nice enough and if I was already leaning her way, I don't think she would have turned me off.

If the story tomorrow is just "everyone gangs up on Harper", then Harper probably was the winner. He was definitely the only Prime Minister on the stage and he defended himself adequately on policy issues. However, there are three big negatives about his performance. Firstly, from a "likable/optics" perspective the creepy smile just wasn't working tonight. Second, if I were a Tory strategist, I'd be very worried about Harper's messaging on the economy right now. You can only say "kay cera cera" so many times before people will begin to think you don't have a plan to handle what everyone assumes will be an upcoming recession. More damaging to Harper could be if voters start thinking he's "out of touch" - Canadians are worried and if they don't think he realizes this, that's trouble with a capital T. Third, surviving the debate is fine for the English one, but Harper needed to land some punches on Duceppe tonight. And he didn't.

Jack Layton was Jack. He did his Jack thing. He showed concern for the problems "normal people" face and tried to relate to Canadians as much as possible. If he does the same thing tomorrow he did tonight, he'll win the English debate, but I'd be surprised if he gave many voters a reason to vote for him over the Bloc.

Stephane Dion was good. He exceeded expectations and didn't get tied up in his words. I thought he struggled explaining himself on the environment but he did well on most other topics. And, most importantly, his attacks were forceful and not flustered. I'm not a big fan of launching policy during a debate (can you guess who did debate prep?), but if his action plan on the economy gets some traction, it could give him some credibility on the issue that everyone cares about right now. The question now is can he pull off an equally strong performance in English?

Gilles Duceppe was good. He's always good. He's been doing this thing for a long time and he does it well. Separatism never came up and Harper failed to make the Bloc out to be the inept anachronistic entity that it is. Considering the Bloc is leading in Quebec right now, there was a shockingly low number of attacks directed Duceppe's way. So Duceppe is certainly a winner, if not the winner.


I won't pick a winner since I think you could make a case for any of the five as having "won" the debate. But it was fun - let's do it again tomorrow!


Debate Live Blog

Feel free to post predictions, reaction, and analysis in the comments section.

Before we get going, be sure to check out my debate drinking game - I'll try and keep a running tally of which leaders does the best job of inebriating watchers tonight.

7:37 - A note on format. More time will be spent on the economy which is good...but the opening and closing statements have been nixed which is kind of dumb. The candidates will also be sitting around a table which is really dumb. We're not on The View here, this is a debate to lead the country - hell, let's just break out the couches and sweater vests and do the whole thing casual!

8:01 - OK, fashion report. Harper has the blue tie! Dion goes with a red tie! Way to be original guys. May mixes it up with teal.

8:03 - First question is on the economy. Harper: "the fundamentals are strong!". May: "the fundamentals are weak!"

Bureau asks the leaders if they have RRSPs - I hope so, because a few of them may soon be unemployed...

8:12 - Duceppe makes an attempt to shore up his Ontario support: "you're ignoring Ontario and Quebec in favour of Alberta".

8:15 - Duceppe says Harper is in bed with "big oil" for the fourth time...and we're only 15 minutes in. Look, I appreciate a straw man as much as the next guy, but those Alberta oil companies have been funding Quebec equalization payments for decades.

8:19 - "You guys willing to go into deficit?" "No", "nope", "no way", "not a chance", "no". Glad we cleared that up. (oh, and Duceppe goes after big oil for the fifth time tonight)

8:21 - The economy is done (Err, the topic, not the actual economy. Not yet anyways.). I think all five leaders stuck to their game plan and did what they planned to do. Harper stuck to his "sunshine lollipops, the fundamentals are strong" approach - he argued the point well but I wonder if he's going to look like he's out of touch. Dion hyped the Liberal record and attacked Harper hard for squandering the deficit. Duceppe...blamed big oil for all the economic ills of Canada. May quoted economists and didn't sound like an enviro-nut. But I think Layton may have won the round, since he was able to relate to average Canadians and showed that he shared their concerns about the economy.

8:37 - And it's chaos!!! Even the translators are talking over each other!

Dion attacks Harper on listeria, quoting a Canadian Medical Journal article, and Harper dismisses it "because the author is a Liberal" - no doubt he's also part of the Elections Canada-Supreme Court-Civil Service-CBC conspiracy.

8:45 - It's hard to say who's winning the debate, but I think the May translator is leading at this point - she's feisty, raising her voice, and showing far more passion than the candidate she's translating from. I'm not such a huge fan of Dion's Scottish translator.

8:51 - Harper's got a "isn't that cute" smirk on his face, whenever Elizabeth May talks.

8:53 - "Can you say one good thing about the opponent to your left". Gag. When does the sing along start?

Jack is almost glowing as Harper compliments him...I think he's blushing.
May: "Mr. Harper has nice children"

9:00 - "What do you think about negative campaigning."

Jack - Ed Broadbent! Take a drink!
May - Ed Broadbent! Take a drink!
Harper - "We don't need personal attacks"

9:03 - Dion has perhaps his best moment of the debate, attacking Harper for his ultra-partisan attack mentality.

9:11 - Duceppe gets the fear mongering award of the night: "Mr. Harper's vision is to have more guns and more criminals". Harper defends his policy by saying the President of the Quebec police union supports it. Yeah, but that guy's probably a Conservative...

9:23 - Quebec nation question. Duceppe gets the laundry list of grievances out. Harper: "notre government agit, the Bloc réagit". Then Harper and Duceppe get into a long argument about...I have no idea...something about faxing the motion to the wrong address...I think this argument deserves a debate of it's own!

9:34 - May: "We haven't talked about climate change in a while...so I'm going to bring it up in the culture section."

9:36 - The vision of a hunched over and smiling Stephen Harper is going to give me nightmares for weeks. He just looks creepier and creepier by the minute.

9:46 - Afghanistan. It's weird - Dion has the most convoluted Afghanistan position of all the leaders but he came across the strongest on this topic. Yet, on the environment, where Dion has the strongest position, he came across fairly wishy washy.

9:55 - Dion confuses Layton and Duceppe with a somewhat funny "the reason Mr. Duceppe will never be Prime Minister...". I don't blame him for mixing the two up, giving the love-in between Layton and Duceppe tonight.

9:56 - Layton to Dion: "The difference between you and I...is that I have a mustache!". OK, just kidding. The difference is that Dion wants to stay in Afghanistan.

9:59 - Harper, for some reason known only to himself, decides to bring up Kyoto, and Duceppe rips him a new one.

Debate Drinking Game

I think my favourite part of any campaign is live-blogging the debate. So, you can be sure that I'll be doing just that tonight (en francais) and tomorrow (en anglais).

But, with 5 leaders and few big issues, the debates might turn out to be rather dull. That's why I present the 2008 Canadian Election Debate Drinking Game.

Take a drink whenever someone...
-With no chance of becoming PM says "as Prime Minister I would..."
-Tells a touching story about a senior they met on the campaign trail
-Says they are "surprised" by something unsurprising an opponent says
-mentions "Canadian values"
-mentions "average Canadians"
-says "strong leader"
-says "while I don't agree with Mr. X, at least he has taken a firm stand"
-says "Canadians are telling me"

Take a shot when someone name drops...
George Bush
Julie Couillard
Bob Rae
Brian Mulroney
Barack Obama
Ed Broadbent
John Howard

Take a sip of your shaken martini (or any pretentious drink that pretends to be cool) every time Stephen Harper...
-mentions past Liberal governments
-says "the fundamentals of the economy are strong"
-calls The Green Shift a "tax on everything"
-calls the opposition "reckless" and/or "irresponsible"
-tries to smile

Take a sip of your wine (make sure it is a local wine, so as to minimize your carbon footprint!) every time Stephane Dion...
-mentions past Liberal governments
-says something eerily similar to one of his Tory commercial lines ("it is not easy to make priorities", "that is unfair", etc)
-confuses you about The Green Shift
-mentions the environment in response to a question having nothing at all to do with the environment
-looks exasperated at something Jack Layton says

Take a chug of your good 'old working family kitchen table beer every time Jack Layton...
-promises "results for people"
-talks about "kitchen tables"
-scapegoats big banks or oil companies
-talks about ATM fees
-says something that makes you want to smack him

Take a sip of a drink you liked a decade ago but have since outgrown every time Gilles Duceppe...
-says "fe-DE-RAWL-lism"
-makes an English pop culture reference
-scapegoats Alberta
-says something incredibly ironic [see his 2006 gem "Harper, you can't keep holding votes on gay marriage just because you don't like the result"]
(notice how I don't have "mentions separatism" here since, let's be serious, he's obviously not going to)

Chug a glass of beet juice every time Elizabeth May...
-compliments Stephane Dion
-starts rambling
-inadvertently insults Canadians
-says something hopelessly idealistic

You know it's a Canadian Election when...

...the Greens complain about being left out of the debates.

...politicians scape-goat the Alberta oilsands.

...the Premier of Alberta wades in.

...the Liberals promise an ambiguous gun ban.

...the Tories flip-flop on negative ads in a matter of hours (they'll go neg anyone?)


Yes, it's hard to call the first full day of the election a slow news day in the least...it just has a "rerun" feel to it. Among the things on day two that deserve a bit of commenting on my part:


1. Ed: It seems Ed Stelmach has taken a page from Ralph Klein's playbook, deciding to play the role of pundit on the federal election campaign. And, whatever, I can't criticize him for that when you consider that McGuinty and Danny Williams will do the same thing (oh, and Harper too). But Stelmach's moral high ground posturing about attack ads? That, I could do without:

But Mr. Stelmach also seemed to suggest that attack ads aren't the way to win that majority, appearing to criticize federal Tory ads harshly critical of the Opposition Liberals.

“Albertans want to know what you're going to do for them,” he said when asked about the federal Conservative ads. “I don't think they pay much attention in terms of criticizing another individual.”

Mr. Stelmach was himself the victim of third-party attack ads in the most recent provincial ballot and said the increased majority his government won is proof that voters don't like negative ads.

“While you're criticizing someone else, you're not really telling Albertans what you're going to do for the province of Alberta.”

First of all, I'm not sure a PC win in Alberta should neccesarily be the case study used to prove a point about election campaigns. And considering the only reason Stelmach offered for re-electing his government was that the Liberals would destroy the economy and bring in the NEP, it definitely isn't a case study in how positive campaigning works.


2. Early in the Morning: The Tories made a tactically brilliant decision in the last campaign to have policy announcements every morning in order to control the day's agenda. No doubt buoyed by this, they've decided to do daily 6 a.m. smearings of Stephane Dion. Today's run did not go over well.

Gee, who would have thought journalists would be cool to the idea of setting their alarm clocks to 5 a.m. every morning wouldn't go over well with reporters already hostile towards Harper? Especially if the Tories don't plan to do anything other than show off new photo shopped Dion pictures?

At the same time, this provides a great opening for the other parties to set the agenda. A daily 8 a.m. policy announcement by the Liberals could easily allow them to set the agenda, rather than just responding to the Conservative narrative.


3. Debate Debate: I've never been convinced that Elizabeth May should be included in the debates despite her belief that she is entitled to a spot. They have yet to crack 5% of the vote in an election (a significant threshold in a lot of MMP countries) and they have yet to elect an MP.

I did find it odd that the Liberals were pushing for her inclusion while the Tories wanted her excluded. If we work on the assumption that having May in the debates helps her...and that she'll grab voters who care about the environment...and that the Liberals are also fighting for voters who care about the environment...well, you have to ask yourself how May doing well helps Dion, and how May doing well does not help Harper. Even if she tears Harper a new one in the debate, that would only serve to make Dion and Layton look even less effective by comparison.

There was a good debate about the debates in the comments section of this post last week. Reading through the comments, what I'd really like to see would be:

-Four debates of different formats (town hall, youtube, topic specific, etc...).
-Get rid of the separate French and English debates and make them all billingual.
-Open up the first three debates to May and the Greens.
-Make the fourth debate open only to the PM and the leader of the opposition. Make it a Bartlett-style no holds barred debate since, after all, these are the two individuals fighting for the right to be Prime Minister under our British Parliamentary system.


PS - Great to see that Steve Paikin will be moderating the English debate this year!

Wild West Shoot-Out

UPDATED AT BOTTOM

I'll be live blogging the Alberta debate tonight as it unfolds. Until then, we've got a real battle of the Reids forming, with Ipsos showing Ed sailing easy and Angus showing Ed in a ton of trouble. Either way, all eyes will be on the debate tonight - if the Alberta Liberals have any chance, tonight is when Taft will have to make his move.

Oh, and I've got 17 minutes in the "how long does it take Ed Stelmach to bring up Trudeau or the NEP" pool.

6:32 pm: Bill Mason takes a page from the Jack Layton playbook! "elect more NDP MPs...errr...MLAs"

6:33pm: Ed Stelmach opening: "plan...we have a clear plan... a very good plan...plan plan plan"

6:39 pm: Apparently there will be absolutely no moderation this debate...

6:41 pm: What the hell? Commercials? Are they serious?

6:36 pm: I'm watching the debate with James Bowie here and his first question of the evening about Paul Hinman - "is English not his first language?"

6:53 pm: Stelmach points out that he's built a "neo-navel" unit. For belly button piercings?

7:01 pm: Paul Hinman - "we are not getting any action". Well, no.

7:04 pm: Kevin sounds good, pulling from his "next Alberta" speech.

7:05 pm: Stelmach calls his royalty position "a decisive decision".

7:08 pm: Ha ha! Who had 38 minutes in the pool? Stelmach brings up Jean Chretien and Ottawa stealing Alberta's wealth.

7:16 pm: Ed gets asked where his figure of 300,000 lost jobs comes from...and...we're on to talking points...I'll give Ed credit - he's not showing any emotion or any sign of life, but he's sticking to the script. Still, he didn't answer the question!

7:23 pm: Kevin looks a bit weak on the environment in my opinion. As I've said before, he should just say he supports the Harper targets and ask Ed if he does as well.

7:24 pm: Ed holds up his no two tier health care strategic plan sign, for the second time! No props! No Props!

7:35 pm: No offense to the gents, but this is looking like a bin round...

7:41 pm: From Mr. Bowie, on Ed Stelmach: "Is this his first election?". Me: "Yup." Bowie: "You can tell..."

7:53 pm: Another f'ing commercial break???? I'm a little disappointed that we didn't get a single question on ethics or accountability tonight since that was the opening for a knock-out punch....

8:00 pm: Following the debate we go right into "Big Love". Resisting...urge...to make Paul Hinman joke...


Well, that's the debate. All in all, it certainly wasn't the greatest debate ever. I'm pretty bad at calling debates and I obviously have my biases, so take the following with a grain of salt:

I do think Taft was by far the best of the four - he was the only one who showed any form of emotion. Most importantly, I think he looked and sounded Premierial. But, that's only for those who watched. There was no...wait for the cliche..."knock out punch", so unless you watched, this debate likely won't change anyone's opinion.

Stelmach...well, they say debates reinforce your opinions, but I cannot imagine anyone watching this debate and thinking this guy is qualified to be Premier. I'm sorry, but he is by far the least inspiring politician ever elected to lead any party in Canada ever. On the plus side, he avoided saying anything overly dumb and no one really hit him hard enough to knock him down so Ed can likely breath easy that this one is over.

As for Hinman and Mason...meh. Neither did much for me, but they hit on their key themes so they should solidify their base, if nothing else. "I hate corporations"..."I hate government"...we get it!

I'm curious to hear other thoughts on the debate. Daveberta, Alberta Tory, the Edmonton Journal, ES, and Joel Kom were all live blogging.


FRIDAY MORNING QUARTERBACK: First of all, I really do think we would have been better served with two commercial free 1 hour debates. Last night, there was nothing on education, nothing on ethics, hardly anything on royalties, and we were treated to the bizarre “auto insurance is a HUGE issue – you have 5 seconds each to explain your positions” question at the end.

As for the performances, the reviews are, as usual, mixed. I scanned a few less mainstream blogs and discussion boards and they were digging Hinman, although a few people thought he came across sounding too old fashioned with respect to child care. The media seems to be of the view that Stelmach won by virtue of not sucking as much as they expected him to, and I’d tend to agree with them. The “undecided voter” panel that Ipsos is running for the Herald had it as a four-way draw, which means Mason and Hinman were the big winners. The Journal’s “average Joe” panel seemed pretty positive towards Taft, and panned Mason by and large.

A few more quick run-down thoughts:

- Stelmach listened to his coaches well. He looked straight ahead and mechanically went into his talking points when instructed to. I’m not sure anyone really understood what he was saying but he tossed around enough examples and numbers that you could at least get the sense he was competent enough to run the province, even if he lacked in the “vision” department.

-Taft was playing more for the audience than the pundits, I think. He was trying to look like a Premier and show some passion, as supposed to just punching away at Stelmach all night. Was that a good strategy? Well, that depends on how far you think Stelmach has fallen. I think he gets good marks on content and delivery, although he had a few weird body language moments.

-My initial reaction was that Hinman and Mason played to their base well and I think that remains true. Hinman wasn’t afraid to put forward his “true conservative” policies and Mason was fighting for the little guy. I wasn’t overly impressed with Mason, truth be told (and I have called debates for Jack Layton before) but he managed to lure Taft into a few skirmishes which is what he had to do too.

-My favourite e-mail I got in response to the debate from a reader:

Taft last night: “Charisma doesn’t win elections. Charisma doesn’t get hospitals built. Charisma doesn’t get schools built.”
But she does put on a great show Tuesdays at the French Maid.

Let's Get Ready to Rummmmmmmmmbbbbbblllllleeeeee!

With Dion on the ropes, he tags Dalton the Decapitator to enter the ring. Ding! Ding! Ding!

McGuinty ridiculed for ‘betrayal’ of auto sector

Harper government's style caught in time warp, McGuinty says

Flaherty slams Ontario Liberals

McGuinty Issues Warning to PM

Meanwhile, fight night is Thursday, with the leaders debate. I'll be live blogging it at 6:30 mountain so tune in here for all the fun! Yes, the polls suck, but how can you not be enjoying the campaign when Ed Stelmach keeps doing stuff like this? In a way, a Tory win would be kind of inspirational in the sense that it would confirm that anyone can be elected as Premier in Alberta so long as:

1. They are a Conservative

2. They are not Jim Dinning

Oh...and here's the picture of the campaign so far: