The Shotgun Blog
« Washington Post contributor questions the intelligence of women | Main | "Free Speech and the Internet" »
Monday, March 03, 2008
Here's what I think happened in Alberta
Ed Stelmach was the benefit of the perfect storm.
One the one hand, he dropped the writ before the Wildrose Alliance Party had a chance to reorganize and get over the disappointment of Preston Manning not running for its leadership. The party has wasn't ready; right-wing voters noticed, and either voted Tory or stayed home.
Meanwhile, WAP did have enough of a presence to spook some Red Tories or Blue Grits who would otherwise vote for "change" - except that their preferred change was from the left, They passed it up, though, in favor of the Tories to stop the WAP.
Thus, only Stelmach's PC's improved their share of the popular vote from 2004 while doing better in Edmonton (13 of 18 seats) than at any time since 1979.
I must confess, I have never seen anything like this. For years, squishes have talked about ignoring the right in favor of the middle. It never worked - no one ever managed to pull enough centrist voters to make-up for the damage done on the right.
No one, that is, except Ed Stelmach - he just squared the circle.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on March 3, 2008 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22305/26766466
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Here's what I think happened in Alberta:
Comments
Albertans are not as politically polarized as many outsiders believe. To us it's about money. We are a true, capitalist society. Politics only matters when it affects revenue stream.
Most oilpatch people sectretly agree that royalties have been too low for too long, but saying so publicly is in poor taste. We know all about the theatrics of oil company CEO's, and we don't buy it any more. We've seen a big slowdown in the last two years, and it has nothing to do with royalties.
The WAP missed the mark by associating with a couple of people that give average Albertans the creeps. No names necessary.
Posted by: dp | 3-Mar-08 11:42:03 PM
Is the best we can do in Alberta a red Tory? The man who put the breaks on the Alberta economy and broke a trust with industry just won a massive majority.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 3-Mar-08 11:42:31 PM
Ed Stelmach has managed to do what Klein did in 2001 but with about 9% less of the overall vote. Go figure.
Posted by: Tom | 3-Mar-08 11:55:56 PM
Goes to show how valid the public opinion polls are. Wished they'd just get rid of those polls and wait see what happens like the rest of us do. Then the sheep might actually make decisions for themselves!!
Posted by: Dawn | 4-Mar-08 1:04:13 PM
I couldn't decide whether to vote for the Torberals or the Liberatives.
And absolutely none of the candidates addressed anything that concerns me. Like individual rights.
Something that seems to have gone completely by the wayside. I've started asking people what their rights are...and no one seems to know.
So apparently we don't really have any, if we did "someone" would know what they are.I don't. Do you?
Posted by: JC | 4-Mar-08 1:34:17 PM
I no longer live in Canada so my news is a little less than when I lived in Alberta. Yet, I am surprised by the responses I see here and on the other thread and on SDA. I am certainly not surprised by the election results.
Consider the analogy of a consumer that has a 5-8 year old vehicle and considers it time for a change. I am simply choosing a time frame that is considered old enough by many to require a change and yet at the same time not yet quite old enough to be a true wreck. The consumer has lots of time to shop. Presumably he is an experienced owner and knows both a good price and a good vehicle when he sees one.
Albertans decided last night that they are going to continue shopping. This is what a wise and prudent shopper does. The Liberals/NDP are the used car dealerships. The WAP may look promising but Albertans need to do more due diligence before purchasing and read more Consumer Reports articles. Now is not the time for the WAP and the time may also not be in the next election. Albertans will revisit the issue next election. Until then, they will use the old vehicle to take the kids to soccer, hockey and piano and get themselves to work.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 4-Mar-08 1:52:23 PM
Brent,
I think it's important to mention that Mr. Stelmach and the PCs campaigned on change too rather than their record.
That isn't the same as continuing to ride the "old vehicle".
I think that a lot of Albertans voted for the "old vehicle" out of fear and weren't aware that the PCs campaigned on change just as their opponents did.
Change is what we'll get.
Posted by: Speller | 4-Mar-08 2:37:55 PM
"I think that a lot of Albertans voted for the "old vehicle" out of fear and weren't aware that the PCs campaigned on change just as their opponents did."
40% of us (eligible voters) voted. And since the parking lots weren't 60% empty downtown, the trains weren't 60% empty, and the mall wasn't 60% empty at lunch, I have to assume 60% of us weren't home sick or on an important urgent call from Aunt Gertrude, but instead were just too lazy to get up and go cast even a spoiled ballot with "undecided" written across it. It's not Stelmach's fault that he has a mandate to govern from 26% of Alberta, it's the fault of the 60% who sat at home and told themselves that Ed's policy wouldn't be shaped by a report of 1,323741 ballots marked "none of you appeal to me".
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 4-Mar-08 2:56:38 PM
>"It's not Stelmach's fault that he has a mandate to govern from 26% of Alberta,..."
Pattern Recognition | 4-Mar-08 2:56:38 PM
Do you think, PR, that the WAP would have done better if "Steady" Eddie had waited until November, the month when Ralph Klein was last elected?
Do you think that poor voter turnout had anything to do with what some people thought of the one month campaign period and early election?
Posted by: Speller | 4-Mar-08 3:09:30 PM
Speller:
"I think it's important to mention that Mr. Stelmach and the PCs campaigned on change too rather than their record."
That is a valid point but I think that it is irrelevant and here is why.
Mr. Stelmach did campaign on change but what he really meant was maintenance to the vehicle. We all know that nothing substantial will change. The only changes that will occur are changes that probably would have occurred had Klein continued on or had Dinning won the leadership. The issue of a Morton leadership is different. I understand that this means I am implying that even "honest" Ed is capable of a little spin in a campainge.
It is my believe that people on the right are (in general) better thinkers and more mature than are their counterparts on the left. Consider the Obama issue. For his supporters "change" means "not Bush". They are prepared to hand over the keys to the kingdom to someone like Obama. No due diligence has been done; they are buying "sight unseen". I consider this to be an immature decision - or at least very inexperianced.
Now consider the more mature, more principled position of Albertans. They know they want change, but they are also mature enough to know the type of change they want and do not want. They are also mature enough to know that you do not hand over the keys to the kingdom to someone who has not proven themselves. The voters are in charge and they are making the decisions. This is good.
Like you, I am not impressed with Stelmach. However, I do not think the WAP sold themselves very well - they did not EARN a vote. Consider one more thing. Albertans are still, by and large, the ones who got on the Reform wagon very quickly in the late 80's and early 90's. They have still not got off that wagon. This is the stongest proof that Albertans will still move quickly when a good alternative is presented.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 4-Mar-08 3:23:49 PM
>"Like you, I am not impressed with Stelmach. However, I do not think the WAP sold themselves very well - they did not EARN a vote."
Brent Weston | 4-Mar-08 3:23:49 PM
WAP didn't run a candidate in every riding because they had only formed days before Mr. Stelmach called an early election.
That is also the reason they didn't sell themselves very well.
I disagree that Albertans bought what they thought they were buying this election.
Albertans wanted Conservatives and got Progressives.
The level to which Alberta rejected the established Left parties demonstrates that.
Well heeled Leftists run as Conservatives in Alberta if they want to get elected.
Mr. Stelmach called the election early to prevent Albertans from having a viable Conservative choice.
Posted by: Speller | 4-Mar-08 3:34:32 PM
"Mr. Stelmach called the election early to prevent Albertans from having a viable Conservative choice."
Fair comment.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 4-Mar-08 3:44:53 PM
Pattern,
You are on to something.
Our democracy is really tryany of the majority no matter how many people actually vote. Say the PC's win a majority with 51% of the popular vote. That means 51% = 100% of the power if you will, and 49% = 0%.
I would guess only the 49% of the voters who voted other than PC care about this.
Since we will from 40% to 60% turnout, we will be ruled by anywhere from 40%x51% (seats) = 20.4% to 60%x88% (seats this year) = 48%.
In the best case senario we are all stilled ruled by a minority. How many people vote will not change that we are ruled by the minority. But it gets worse than that because once in power, the people very little say for 4 years. So we are really ruled by a VERY small minority of power hungry people who have coercive power.
Posted by: TM | 4-Mar-08 3:46:14 PM
"Do you think, PR, that the WAP would have done better if "Steady" Eddie had waited until November, the month when Ralph Klein was last elected? Do you think that poor voter turnout had anything to do with what some people thought of the one month campaign period and early election?"
I haven't put much thought into the election's results but I can't see why anyone deserves to use either the timing, frequency or overall mundaneness of an election as an excuse to not vote. I can't think of any reason [for an able-bodied literate eligible voter] not to vote. I mentioned in an earlier thread that the Iraqis had a better sense of civic duty than we did, and they could probably list a raft of semi-legitimate excuses like kidnapping and gunmen and the weather. The weather wasn't that bad here, and you can vote in early balloting if the gunmen have you worried.
Overall I think the WAP did a remarkably bad job in their current and past incarnations of telling their story to Albertans. Ideas that spread, win, and the WAP's ideas couldn't spread for lack of a story people could share. The PCs had an implicit story: Status Quo. The liberals had one too, "No fair! Our turn! Quit hoggin'!" You can share those ideas person to person, virally, in seconds flat. But the WAP story? You and I might be able to sum it up, but not quickly, not easily, and not in a way that could be passed along and survive the re-telling. "Have you got ten minutes?" That won't work today. Or ever.
Posted by: pattern Recognition | 4-Mar-08 3:47:01 PM
"In the best case senario we are all stilled ruled by a minority."
One nice thing about the system though, is that political movements outlive the careers of politicians, and they feed on votes. As such those movements always have their eye on the next election, even if a given politician has a big fat exit into private consulting in mind. The people may shut up and go all complacent for four years but the parties of those movements have to keep an eye on us. If we're smart and realize Ed is already thinking about his next election, we can shift policy even in the first hundred days of a term, simply by being a moving target. Mulroney became an environmentalist, Schwarzenegger became a compassionate conservative, and registered Democrat Ronald Regan became a Republican because you have to do what you have to do to stay top of mind between elections. They only have as much political capital as we say they have. And the more of "we" there are, by voting even with a spoiled ballot in frustration, the lower the value of each unit of political capital given by any mandate. Vote however, but vote.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 4-Mar-08 4:00:06 PM
>"The PCs had an implicit story: Status Quo."
The PCs didn't run on their record.
The PCs didn't run on the status quo.
The PCs weren't offering the status quo and Alberta isn't going to get the status quo from the PCs.
The PCs ran on the call for change.
Change is what Alberta is going to get whether or not you were paying attention, PR.
Mr. Stelmach tearing up signed agreements with energy companies and ordering new licence plates, front and back, auger clearly for Mr. Stelmach changing Alberta in his own image.
The WAP doesn't have a former or earlier incarnation.
They are a new party.
The WAP didn't "tell their story" well because they didn't have the money, they didn't have the time, and the media did their best to ignore them.
People who didn't vote didn't vote because they didn't want to vote for Leftists, which is what the PCs are, and a Conservative alternative hadn't been given time to organize and build a war chest.
Posted by: Speller | 4-Mar-08 4:03:41 PM
The PCs ran under a message of change, but got elected by voters looking for status quo. It's actually a big failing on their part, even though it worked out for them.
As for the WAP being new, I was under the impression the Wildrose and Alliance parties existed since 2007 and the Alliance party since October 2002. The CPP had barely formed and yet they won a national election.
As for funding and media attention, YouTube is a media outlet where people can share and watch your ads at work. I don't even have to be in front of the TV exactly when they run the two minute story on your party. Before his meltdown, Howard Dean fundraised, spread his message, and became the Democratic frontrunner almost exclusively through the internet. Ron Paul has done the same, although his campaign suffers from the inherent difficulty of explaining what exactly a constitutionalist libertarian is to an ordinary busy American with no time.
The media themselves are in a panic over their withering relevance in a crowded market. They can't be blamed.
It costs almost nothing to campaign through viral person-to-person networks. Money can't be blamed.
Probably forty million people in the US now know everything there is to know about the marine based in Hawaii and his alleged acts against a dog, and that story broke yesterday afternoon and didn't even make the evening news. Time can't be blamed.
To paraphrase Mulroney vs. Turner, "People had a choice to vote". A spoiled ballot is a vote. Lack of choice can't be blamed.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 4-Mar-08 4:32:01 PM
PR,
"Probably forty million people in the US now know everything there is to know about the marine based in Hawaii and his alleged acts against a dog, and that story broke yesterday afternoon and didn't even make the evening news. Time can't be blamed."
I am unfamiliar with this story but from your description, I fail to see its importance enough for you to mention it in at least 2 threads.
An individual marine committed some kind of heinous crime? Your point? Shit happens. Sadly! Am I supposed to stay glued to the TV waiting for 911 like coverage or something? Or are you trying to infer this is some kind of US Military policy in which case, yes, it would something I'd learn more about.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 4-Mar-08 4:42:44 PM
>"As for the WAP being new, I was under the impression the Wildrose and Alliance parties existed since 2007 and the Alliance party since October 2002. The CPP had barely formed and yet they won a national election."
Pattern Recognition | 4-Mar-08 4:32:01 PM
If the WAP wasn't new then why didn't the Wildrose people just join the Alliance Party?
Did the CPC form one month before the national election?
No.
The CPC was founded December 7, 2003 sat as the official opposition and was elected to government January 23, 2006.
Does that seem new or comparable to 1 month to you, PR?
YouTube?
What is it, apart from everything, that you don't understand about mass media?
Do you really think that people are going to understand what an Alberta party is about from YouTube?
Why, PR, do you think Partys bother to put out election signage and billboards?
Do you think these are free?
It takes manpower, and money, and time to put out signs and knock on doors, but if volunteers knock on doors they have to know the message the Party is telling very well.
Do you imagine the WAP door knockers knew what all the WAP election points were when the Party hadn't even developed these points more than a week or two before?
If someone knocked on your door for political support wouldn't you expect them to know all of their Party's platform and the platform's of their competitors?
The WAP didn't even have enough candidates to run in 84 ridings!
Time makes a difference and the lack of a Conservative alternative was why people didn't vote.
And NO, people aren't going to spend the time to go to the polls and spoil a ballot.
Casting a spolied ballot wates the time of the voter, who has a life to live, wastes the time of the election officials, who have to count the votes, and validates the lack of choice between the political parties and legitimizes the cheap politcal trick of calling early elections before a governing period is over.
Why didn't Ed Stelmach call a general election as soon as the PC Party of Alberta had chosen him as it's new leader?
Because that would have disadvantaged the PCs the way Mr. Stelmach disadvantaged the WAP.
How old are you?
What drivel you write, PR.
Posted by: Speller | 4-Mar-08 5:18:45 PM
PR, what you say may be true to a point but there is a problem with it. The real payoff is for a government to be populist. The number one goal is to get elected. The number two goal is to get re elected. They will do and say whatever they need to. There is a day of reckoning at election time but as we have seen, that is hardly enough. Voters are not always rational and are often under educated about economics or ideas such freedom.
Part of the answer is for us to become informed, and spread the word in any way we can.
Posted by: TM | 4-Mar-08 5:21:45 PM
Albertans may have voted for change. Stelmach will give them the illusion of change. However, the Edmonton-based civil service is eternal, and will continue to do what it decides is in the province's best interest(as they define it). Politicians come and go, even with 90% of the seats in the Legislature. The tenured, unremoveable senior civil servants remain.
Posted by: Patrick B | 4-Mar-08 5:23:57 PM
What came down last night is Edmonton finally got a leader from the north and decided to support him and the voters in Calgary , who did not want Stelmak, got cold feet at the last moment and did not want to be on the wrong side of the winning ticket. They lost their power when Ralph was forced out and the puppet Dinning lost.
Posted by: Barrie | 4-Mar-08 6:09:38 PM
...WAP like the past Conservative/Alliance just had a bad marketing firm.
Their 'spooky' ads did them in. Even Mr. Stelmach used it to his favour.
For the WAP to be a serious contender, they have to do better in presenting themselves as a viable alternative.
Posted by: tomax7 | 4-Mar-08 6:49:24 PM
tomax7, the issue in play for conservatives in this election was the oil and gas royalty hike - and Paul Hinman was very effective during the debate at framing the issue as a broken contract with industry. Hinman did a good job. The problem is that most voters have some perverse idea that they own Alberta's resource wealth.
“I’ll say it a dozen times, people have to remember that the Oil Sands are owned by the people, they’re not owned by the oil companies.” Peter Lougheed, Premier of Alberta 1971-1985
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 4-Mar-08 7:11:33 PM
Albertan's are just too apethic, maybe due to the fact that the Alberta have had basically one-party rule for the 30 years.
Posted by: Gmen | 4-Mar-08 7:41:54 PM
Forget the stupid puppy for a minute. My point is that a YouTube video was passed along to more people every 30 seconds than the WAP spoke to in 30 whole days. Smart politicians don't depend on the MSM and posters to share their message.
H2O my point about the marine incident and YouTube has nothing to do with the marines per se, since the Marines have already denounced the incident.
My point is that tens of millions of people learned about something, in detail, in a matter of hours, without that thing being spread by the mainstream media, posters, busses, stump speeches or any of the usual mechanism's politicians feel they need to have in place in order to campaign. Imagine a smart politician using the same viral infrastructure to spread their message. Granted it has to be a message people agree with or feel is worth passing along and talking about, and in hat sense it's a great barometer for whether you have a hope in an election, but my point stands and was demonstrated.
The WAP spent how many thousands of dollars over thirty days or soto reach roughly 64,600 people who voted for them. About 2,200 people per day. That stupid puppy video cost exactly zero dollars to reach more people than live in all of Canada in under one day. And that's just one tool. Free videos.
Does everyone watch YouTube? Of course not. Could enough politically active people see a prsentation on YouTube that taught them how to campaign in their social circles for the WAP? Yes. Could they then use either the talking points or the actual speeches posted to share the WAP ideas? Of course. For free? Yep. Do other politicians know this and use this (particularly in the USA)? Only the ones who are still in the race. Do you disagree? Of course? Are there any WAP MLAs? Nope. Does that make me kind of happy that you'll continue to disagree? Probably.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 5-Mar-08 8:56:56 AM
PR,
Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 5-Mar-08 8:59:41 AM
No problem. I appreciate the irony/comedy in my points on communication coming across poorly.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 5-Mar-08 9:03:21 AM
YouTube is not mass media, PR.
You think enough people will see a WAP presentation on YouTube, and I say that's absurd.
People have to be spoon fed politics, if that wasn't so the voter turnout would be higher.
Very few people I know personally get information that way.
If they did, the notion of Anthropogenic Global Warming would have died a year ago, and the notion that there IS Global Warming at all would have died 4 months ago.
Posted by: Speller | 5-Mar-08 12:10:52 PM
Speller, I never said YouTube was mass media, in fact Mass Media has been trying to adapt to the YouTube/Internet phenomenon. And since there's a large bloc of people on YouTube et. al. who believe in the human-caused warming thing, that argument hasn't sorted itself out online. There's multiple messages competing, with the balance tipped towards the Gore-type camp.
You think it's absurd to rely on the internet to spread ideas, and I say it's where ideas spread these days. Where are we talking right now? Tim Hortons? On a party line? Through a clever volley of billboards and attack ads? Why is Harper threatening to sue the Liberals? For comments made in an attack ad? For slights posted on a billboard? Or for comments posted on the Liberal Website?
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 5-Mar-08 12:32:18 PM
Keep in mind, just because you put an idea out there online, or launch a so-called grassroots viral campaign, doesn't mean it necessarily will spread, just that it necessarily can spread faster than traditional methods. The idea still has to resonate, feel true, appeal to people, and be somehting they'll feel comfortable sharing with others. That may be why guys like Fred SInger can't get their message to spread past the predisposed, while guys like Obama are catching on raising 28 million online in January alone. His free Google videos saw 24 million plays PER DAY. How much would it cost the WAP to get an ad played on Global to 10% of the voter base each day?
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 5-Mar-08 12:47:41 PM
Mass media is media which reaches the masses.
You must be thinking of something else.
It would take a mass media campaign to tell people to look for the WAP message on YouTube.
Many people don't have computers, many people who have computers don't have an internet connection, many people who have an internet connection don't look for politics on the internet, and most people have to have the political message brought to them(door to door), in the newspaper they bought for a reason other than politics, or placed in front of their faces by a lawn sign or billboard.
That's mass media.
Television and radio are also mass media and advertisements cost money, just as signs, radio commercials, and newspaper advertisements.
Mr. Obama has a large staff of people selling him and they are professionals who are either paid or believe in his candidacy.
Mr. Obama has many millions of dollars behind him.
The Leftist media shills seek him out and do television interviews, radio interviews, and magazine spreads.
YouTube does not reach the masses, especially in a target area.
The 28 million you cite doesn't necessarily get viewed by new people for each hit counted and 28 million isn't a lot when the population is 300 million and spread out all over America.
Many of those 28 million may not even be Americans who are eligible to vote.
Many may not be Americans at all.
Posted by: Speller | 5-Mar-08 1:07:03 PM
I know you know that when a message spreads like wildfire to the "few of us" who have access to the internet, it can spread past that few of us to the rest of the people we know. You've probably never seen Fred Singer lecture in person or read Lomborg's book but his ideas reached you indirectly, through sources that were indirectly connected themselves. That's the point of an idea-based campaign using free social media. The small minority with web access (60%+) talk to the vast majority without.
For instance, check this out.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6909078385965257294
See? That's how you spread an idea stored online. No call center, no funding, no ads. No CTV news story. You can watch it, and if it makes sense you, have something new to talk about.
Person to person contact. It's how the flu spreads, and it's how ideas can spread too. Remember the Faberge Organics shampoo ad?
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 5-Mar-08 1:18:33 PM
"Mr. Obama has many millions of dollars behind him. The Leftist media shills seek him out and do television interviews, radio interviews, and magazine spreads."
You'd agree then that, the leftist media has no reason to shill for Ron Paul and yet, using the same methods that you insist do not work, Ron set records with a single-day fundraising take on the web of $3 million (almost the entire PC campaign budget) and is now averaging roughly $165,000/hour. And he doesn't have Oprah on his side. Just because the WAP missed this boat doesn't mean it wouldn't have worked for them.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 5-Mar-08 1:26:27 PM
Ron Paul has been a Texas Congressman for decades.
PR you draw equivalences where none exist.
Ron Paul has been on TV, Radio, in magazines, and has written books for decades.
He has a ready made political machine with backers, both in time and money, that have been in place for decades.
No only can you not say that about any WAP candidate, but you would be hard pressed to say that about any Alberta candidate, including Mr. Stelmach.
in addition, Ron Paul failed to become a Presidential candidate miserably, and the Left was pushing him because he benefited the Left.
Posted by: Speller | 5-Mar-08 1:51:03 PM
"No only can you not say that about any WAP candidate..."
That would be a failing of the candidates and the parties in their nomination/recruitment processes or in its platforms. Alberta is chock full of great leadership material. Clearly very little of it has gravitated towards any of the current parties. But when it does, they know there are proven mechanisms to spread their message around without having to spread money around.
"in addition, Ron Paul failed to become a Presidential candidate..."
Again (and again) I didn't say YouTube would make a candidate become president, I said it would get his ideas exposed to the public, who then has the choice to say no (which they did).
"Ron Paul has been on TV, Radio, in magazines, and has written books for decades."
Which is why my very first mention of the viral social media tool was about a 17 second video of a Marine and a Dog. Neither the Marine nor the dog were on TV, Radio, in magazines, or written books for decades and yet millions heard about them two days ago. Why not use our imagination and find ways to leverage these tools towards bigger goals? Why moan about money, press coverage, and time when nether have to matter anymore?
Or is this all about excuses and blame? I know it isn't.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 5-Mar-08 2:23:02 PM
Post a comment