2014 Mayoral Election

[oldcoote]

Ward 1 is wide open.

I expect it will come down to Jason Allen, Sandy Shaw or Aiden Johnson.

Sandy Shaw has my vote. She's really impressed me.

[SteelTown]

^ Ditto, Sandy impressed me. Though I wouldn't mind if Aiden won.

Arlene VanderBeek is likely to win ward 13, got Russ Powers endorsement.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by matt602

I doubt it in Ward 2, personally. Jason Farr is looking pretty likely to be re-elected, as far as I can see.

There is growing discontent in Ward 2 for Farr. I have been in receipt of several emails being exchanged among members of different neighbourhood associations in Ward 2 who are disappointed in his performance, and are debating who they should rally behind in a concerted push to oust him. Sadly, from what I see, the support is pretty much evenly divided among Vail and Wallis, so Farr may very well escape an ouster by sneaking up the middle of a split vote.

[Jon Dalton]

I think it's a very vocal minority who are displeased with Farr. Notably members of North End and Stinson upset over developments that he supported. They have a reason to be angry but I don't think most ward 2 residents share their views. My neighbourhood association was asked to join the anti - Farr crusade but declined.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

There is growing discontent in Ward 2 for Farr. I have been in receipt of several emails being exchanged among members of different neighbourhood associations in Ward 2 who are disappointed in his performance, and are debating who they should rally behind in a concerted push to oust him. Sadly, from what I see, the support is pretty much evenly divided among Vail and Wallis, so Farr may very well escape an ouster by sneaking up the middle of a split vote.

I respect Mr. Vail, but I would be surprised if he could get significant support in the most urban ward of the city.

Oldcoote, I agree that Ward One seems uncallable. I’d be surprised if Aiden Johnson winds up winning- Jason Allen’s campaign seems to be the “oldest” (he declared way back, and it was seriously discussed for a long time before), but I’m not sure what that’s worth.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

I respect Mr. Vail, but I would be surprised if he could get significant support in the most urban ward of the city.

Hard to get a read on Vail. He got 5,136 votes in his June 2014 provincial run in Hamilton Centre, which contains all of Wards 2 and 3 and half of Wards 1 and 8. Would be interesting to know how many of those votes were in Ward 2, but at minimum he spent six weeks campaigning in Hamilton Centre earlier this year. (Trivia: Vail fully supported LRT while Government Relations Chair of the RAHB.)

Andrea Horwath was elected Ward 2 Councillor in 2000 with 4,192 votes and reelected in 2003 with 4,601 votes.
Bob Bratina was elected Ward 2 Councillor in 2004 with 1,856 votes and re-elected in 2006 with 4,001 votes.
Jason Farr was elected Ward 2 Councillor in 2010 with 1,607 votes.

[Jon Dalton]

John Vail answered a poverty related question at the DNA mayoral debate with "One thing that keeps people poor is high taxes..." and went on about property taxes on homeowners in the ward, not even addressing how it affects those in poverty. With such a single minded focus on upper / middle class class issues I can't see him getting much support in ward 2. It's still a very mixed income ward.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

John Vail answered a poverty related question at the DNA mayoral debate with "One thing that keeps people poor is high taxes..." and went on about property taxes on homeowners in the ward, not even addressing how it affects those in poverty. With such a single minded focus on upper / middle class class issues I can't see him getting much support in ward 2. It's still a very mixed income ward.

Admittedly haven't seen much of him in debate/discussion but yes, that sort of response suggests he doesn't really understand the nuances of the ward. At minimum the question was an opportunity for candidates to demonstrate credible empathy. Swung on and missed.

[thistleclub]

Do the suburbs make or break mayors?
(Hamilton Spectator, Andrew Dreschel, Oct 16 2014)

It never fails.

The moment a mayoral candidate starts pitching goodies to the outlying wards, the cry goes up that he or she is cynically chasing the suburban vote.

It's happening to Brad Clark, based on his call for expanded transit services in Ancaster, Stoney Creek and Dundas.

It happened to Bob Bratina in the 2010 election when he floated the idea of revisiting amalgamation.

There may be truth in the assertion. But the finger-wagging largely stems from a persistent belief that the suburbs make or break mayoral candidates.

They don't.

This is Hamilton's fifth civic election since amalgamation. If we've learned one thing about voting patterns over that time it should be that the seven suburban wards no more control the outcome of the mayor's race than the eight inner city wards do.

Of course, candidates try to appeal to certain parochial interests. That's what politicians do.

And certainly there are plenty of urban-suburban-rural divisions and interests in this city of 520,000 souls that are ripe for political massaging.

But the suburbs do not hold the mayoral whip hand. To be elected mayor, candidates need solid support among the 217,000 or so eligible voters in the old city as much as they do among the 136,000 in the suburban communities.

Read it in full here.

[durandy]

I'll be surprised if anyone in ward 2 other than Farr hits 1000 votes.

Aidan Johnson has a lot of political support but I wonder how well it will translate to votes.

Ward 3 I'm more interested in but few of the candidates are appealing.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

It's happening to Brad Clark, based on his call for expanded transit services in Ancaster, Stoney Creek and Dundas.

I'm not a suburban voter, but I feel strongly about expanding transit service in the suburbs.

[thistleclub]

CBC Hamilton's "dream candidate"?

[thistleclub]

As Toronto dithers, Guelph sets sights on 21st century
(Toronto Star, Don Tapscott, Oct 17 2014)

There is a city in Ontario that is well on its way to reimagining the role of local government. And it’s not Toronto.

Earlier this year I wrote in this space that the Toronto mayoral candidates were missing the point. I argued that the city is on the cusp of profound changes and needed a mayor with vision and an ability to lead.

The networked age provides new opportunities to reinvent our local infrastructure and institutions.

All the Toronto mayoral candidates ignored the advice. So imagine my surprise when an email from Mayor Karen Farbridge of Guelph arrived, saying that her community is actually working hard to implement the transformations I outlined in the article.

I’ve looked into her claims and have concluded that the city’s elected officials, public servants and 120,000 citizens are well on their way to reimagining the role of local government.

Read it in full here.

[markbarbera]

Sadly, the example set by the frontrunning Toronto mayoral candidates will not be followed byHamilton's mayoral hopefuls, who will keep their donor lists secret until they are legally obliged to reveal them after the election is over.

You'll have to wait until after the election to learn which of the big three candidates for mayor won the fundraising battle – or who filled their war chests.

Unlike in the past two elections, none of the major players in the race will allow a pre-vote glimpse at their donor lists. By law, they're not required to until after the election.

But campaign cash – and who doles it out – was a central theme in 2006 thanks to then-mayor Larry Di Ianni's guilty plea on charges related to illegal donations, which he said were inadvertent errors.

Successful challenger Fred Eisenberger refused corporate donations and lobbied for a provincial ban. Both candidates released donor lists early in 2006 and again in 2010 in the name of transparency.

This time around, Eisenberger calls the sneak preview "unnecessary," arguing candidates have "tightened up their processes" since 2006 when it comes to accepting donations.

Another difference: there is no incumbent mayor in the race. A past city report found 77 per cent of all corporate donations – and 62 per cent from trade unions – went to incumbent members of council in 2006.

Eisenberger, the lowest spender among major candidates in two straight elections, said he will "continue to advocate" for a provincial rule change on corporate and union donations.

But until that happens, he said his campaign won't automatically turn down corporate cash.

Brian McHattie, who refused corporate donations as a councillor, has also bowed to the realities of pricey mayoral contests.

"This time, with a campaign across the city, we're accepting them," he said, but added a majority of his donations so far have come from individuals.

Full article here.

Interesting that Eisenberger and McHattie decided to abandon their past moral principles of refusing corporate donations and revealing their donors ahead of the election. Clark never has felt the obligation to do either. No wonder so many people I encounter are wishing there was a 'none of the above' option on the ballot.

[durandy]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Interesting that Eisenberger and McHattie decided to abandon their past moral principles of refusing corporate donations and revealing their donors ahead of the election. Clark never has felt the obligation to do either. No wonder so many people I encounter are wishing there was a 'none of the above' option on the ballot.

There is a $750 limit on contributions, Hardly enough to turn this into Tammany Hall. If you're McHattie you're aware that half the city has no idea who you are, and billboards aren't cheap.

[SteelTown]

Eisenberger leads latest polls, McHattie makes gains
Eisenberger has support of 37% of respondents, Clark at 25% and McHattie at 22%

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...ains-1.2805574

Fred Eisenberger is still the frontrunner to be Hamilton’s next mayor, according to the results of a new poll.

A Forum Research poll says Eisenberger has the support of 37 per cent of decided and leaning respondents, with Brad Clark coming in second at 25 per cent and Brian McHattie virtually tied with him at 22 per cent.

The poll was conducted for the Hamilton Spectator on Oct. 17 and was a landline and cellphone survey of 751 respondents. The poll has a margin or error of 3.6 per cent and is considered accurate 19 times out of 20.

"The big change here is that Brian McHattie has caught up with Brad Clark and now shares second place with him,” said Forum Research President, Dr. Lorne Bozinoff. “With less than 10 days to go, however, it looks like this race is Fred Eisenberger's to lose.”

About 1-in-6 of respondents said they would vote for some other candidate at 16 per cent, up from 11 per cent in the last poll. That list includes (in alphabetical order by last name) Michael Baldasaro, Ejaz Butt, Mike Clancy, Warrand Francis, Nick Iamonico, Crystal Lavigne, Michael Pattison, Phil Ryerson, Ricky Tavares.

[thistleclub]

A medley of mayoral platforms:

Michael Baldasaro
Ejaz Butt
Brad Clark
Fred Eisenberger
Brian McHattie

[markbarbera]

The comparison of the September 25 poll against this new poll is not being presented correctly. The more recent poll has factored out undecided voters, which makes support growth for the three frontrunners look exaggerated. The previous poll had 34% undecided so almost 75% of the undecided have parked their vote, pretty much evenly split among the three front runners.

In truth, Eisenberger has about 34% of the decided vote, Clark has 23% and McHattie has 20%. With just 9% remaining undecided, Clark or McHattie would have to capture all that swing vote and hope a good chunk of Eisenberger supporters stay home on October 27 if either has any hope of surpassing Eisenberger.

[HillStreetBlues]

I don't think it's a good idea to call anything "Transit City"...if you're trying to capture the vote of suburban Hamiltonians who think you’re a wishy-washy lefty, do you really want to be associated in their minds with David Miller?

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Has anyone tried to explain why the lower city's change in voter registrations was so large relative to population change?

The Voters' Guide notes that municipal voters lists are based on MPAC ownership and tenancy data, corrected by the city clerks. Perhaps greater turnover in residency pulled the numbers down because the data could not be updated fast enough?

I'm curious how the 2014 numbers will stack up.

Via CBC Hamilton:

In a three-headed race, Bratina won by a margin of 12,593 votes, nearly exactly the same number of new voters that have been added to the 2014 voters list from 2010, which was 12,807.

So the 2014 municipal baseline is apparently 366,124 registered voters.