Isn't it a good thing this was a short campaign? It may not seem like it to most Ontarians but considering recent history, it was. So what was learned this time? As usual, it depends entirely upon who you ask. That part is completely in line with recent history as well. Some things did not change over the writ period at all in the "public sphere".
Kathleen Wynne started the campaign as someone on the way out. A scandalous regime that had spent Ontario into the ground. That perception still holds out there, reality being something else for the most part. Considering her concession speech days before the vote, it looks like the perception is in stone for a decade or so. Is it based on empirical data, a cost/benefit analysis? No, it's based on feels.
Andrea Horwath started the campaign polling as the "most trusted" and "most premier-like" of the three leaders in contention and has remained there without much contest. And that is exactly why her opponents have attacked her directly except for a few manufactured candidate plays. But radicals. But Rae Days. But socialism! The refusal to look at Ontario when the Rae government arrived and when they left without bias is still there. Are these criticisms based on a cost/benefit analysis? No, they're based on feels.
Doug Ford's campaign has been about feels from start to finish. The faux populist has nothing else. No costed platform. No press questions. Ducking out of back doors. By far the most questionable candidates of any party. The 407ETR data. The OPP investigations into nominations. Appointing candidates by the handful. A large lead squandered.
How is it feels and not facts? Well who stands to gain the most? Who evokes feels for monetization? Corporate media. At least it's not a surprise anymore. Soundbites, live hits and GIFs do not serve democracy. But they generate revenue. Let's talk politics as an industry.
Sorry we couldn't complete your registration. Please try again.
You must accept the Terms and conditions to register