2022 municipal election publicity

[jwilliamson]

Julie Wright just stopped by our house in Waterloo Ward 7. She talked with my wife for a while about building missing middle housing and supporting active transport. She seems like a good candidate, and judging by the signs I've seen she's likely to win.

[BrooklinWR]

Thank you! Hopefully this isn't a "schoolkids noticing their teacher is listening" type instance and I didn't scare everyone away 😅

I think not ... happy to see that we didn't scare you away!

What do you see as the key to overcoming Debbie Chapman's incumbency advantage?

Honestly? Talking to as many people as possible is the current plan. I'm fairly confident in my ability to convince undecided voters, and, hopefully, I can inspire a younger group of voters to come out and vote, too.

If anyone has advice I'd love it though, incumbency is hard to beat and I need all the help I can get!

[tomh009]

I think not ... happy to see that we didn't scare you away!

What do you see as the key to overcoming Debbie Chapman's incumbency advantage?

Honestly? Talking to as many people as possible is the current plan. I'm fairly confident in my ability to convince undecided voters, and, hopefully, I can inspire a younger group of voters to come out and vote, too.

If anyone has advice I'd love it though, incumbency is hard to beat and I need all the help I can get!

I saw my first Brooklin signs today, on the (Kitchener) E side of Victoria, near Garment St. 👍

My unscientific assessment is that the condo dwellers will, in general, tend to be more progressive, and will tend to recognize the challenges we have in the community even if they do own nice condos. So, please don't overlook canvassing the condo buildings if your schedule allows that.

I am mystified by Chapman's assertion that people (individual people!) are investing in condos only to keep them vacant and off the market. It makes no sense at all for an investor to do that when the property appreciation is anything but guaranteed. We need housing of all types, and all of it helps the current shortage.

[fakepnijjar]

I think not ... happy to see that we didn't scare you away!

What do you see as the key to overcoming Debbie Chapman's incumbency advantage?

Honestly? Talking to as many people as possible is the current plan. I'm fairly confident in my ability to convince undecided voters, and, hopefully, I can inspire a younger group of voters to come out and vote, too.

If anyone has advice I'd love it though, incumbency is hard to beat and I need all the help I can get!

These are all my opinions, and I have terrible political instincts, but these are my feelings based on paying attention to many municipal elections. I feel you already understand the points I am going to make, but I will state them anyways.

One mistake people make is thinking that you can win an election campaign on Twitter. It is much worse than that; people will vote for you if you shake their hand. You need a strong ground game in order to win. You also need to convince voters that you are a safe bet, which (sadly) also means money. If you have lots of literature and signs out then people will see your name out there.

Being active online is helpful to get the support of the chattering classes, but it is not enough to get you the votes. (I have seen Reddit used as an effective tool for political mobilization, but that still involved people committing to a cause.)

A bunch of this involves growing your team of enthusiastic, dedicated helpers. People don't win election campaigns on their own. Those who have party machinery backing them have an advantage here, but it is possible for others to compete as well. I do not know your political leanings or party affiliation, but if you can build connections to networks of party loyalists then you can build some effective recruits to help with canvassing and logistics. If people on this forum want you to win then they should strongly consider pitching in. You might try recruiting via other social media as well. (For the record, I am not picking a side; I do not feel will either one of you would be a disaster on council in the way certain other Ward 9 candidates might be.)

Chapman has a strong ground game, which is why her signs are everywhere. She infamously lost to Frank Etherington by one vote, so she knows how to deal with a competitive campaign. It will take work to overcome that hurdle. One way I will disagree with others here is that I do not think the homeowner/renter or homeowner/condo-dweller split is all that strong, and would encourage you not to ignore homeowners as a source of votes.

[danbrotherston]

Honestly? Talking to as many people as possible is the current plan. I'm fairly confident in my ability to convince undecided voters, and, hopefully, I can inspire a younger group of voters to come out and vote, too.

If anyone has advice I'd love it though, incumbency is hard to beat and I need all the help I can get!

[...]
Chapman has a strong ground game, which is why her signs are everywhere. She infamously lost to Frank Etherington by one vote, so she knows how to deal with a competitive campaign. It will take work to overcome that hurdle. One way I will disagree with others here is that I do not think the homeowner/renter or homeowner/condo-dweller split is all that strong, and would encourage you not to ignore homeowners as a source of votes.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Ward 3 probably has a higher percentage of renters, but Ward 9 is still well over 50% of renters. And many of the remaining are condo owners. Single family home owners actually make up a minority of the population living in the ward. I wonder if they are even the majority of Chapman voters, I don't know. But they are certainly the ones whose values align most closely with Chapman.

Trying to convince a NIMBY to agree with us is extremely difficult and takes time and effort. Convincing someone who already agrees with you that it's worth coming out to vote is much easier. All it requires is sounding like you actually are on their side and can make a difference--which given Chapmans voting record against housing, isn't difficult at all.

Given the voter turnout for municipal elections is generally in the 30% range, there's plenty of non-voters out there to convert into voters. And of course, given that older, white, wealthy, single family homeowners who support Chapman are more likely to vote, that number is even higher among renters and younger condo owners.

I'm sure there are many homeowners that would be receptive to BrooklinWR's values but they are sparse and intermixed with a much larger number of likely Chapman supporters. The biggest advantage I see that BrooklinWR could exploit is the relative density of potential supporters in rental and condo buildings.

[danbrotherston]

Honestly? Talking to as many people as possible is the current plan. I'm fairly confident in my ability to convince undecided voters, and, hopefully, I can inspire a younger group of voters to come out and vote, too.

If anyone has advice I'd love it though, incumbency is hard to beat and I need all the help I can get!

I saw my first Brooklin signs today, on the (Kitchener) E side of Victoria, near Garment St. 👍

My unscientific assessment is that the condo dwellers will, in general, tend to be more progressive, and will tend to recognize the challenges we have in the community even if they do own nice condos. So, please don't overlook canvassing the condo buildings if your schedule allows that.

I am mystified by Chapman's assertion that people (individual people!) are investing in condos only to keep them vacant and off the market. It makes no sense at all for an investor to do that when the property appreciation is anything but guaranteed. We need housing of all types, and all of it helps the current shortage.

I am not mystified by it, it's a clear example of motivated thinking.

Chapman (and NIMBYs in general) don't want more housing built.

They also have sympathy for those who cannot find housing.

Therefore they must believe that there is lots of housing in existence but isn't available.

If they didn't believe this, they would be the bad guy, and that's not something anyone is willing to believe.

The vast majority of the population do not reason using facts, but instead reason using emotion.

[Bytor]

Video of Ward 9 debate is up at https://youtu.be/5WVvTDuPdyg in 360p with the 1080p still processing, so probably another hour, potentially 2, for that.

[danbrotherston]

I almost want to watch it for morbid curiosity. But my blood pressure does not need listening to Chapman NIMBY for an hour and a half.

[dtkmelissa]

I saw my first Brooklin signs today, on the (Kitchener) E side of Victoria, near Garment St. 👍

My unscientific assessment is that the condo dwellers will, in general, tend to be more progressive, and will tend to recognize the challenges we have in the community even if they do own nice condos. So, please don't overlook canvassing the condo buildings if your schedule allows that.

I am mystified by Chapman's assertion that people (individual people!) are investing in condos only to keep them vacant and off the market. It makes no sense at all for an investor to do that when the property appreciation is anything but guaranteed. We need housing of all types, and all of it helps the current shortage.

I am not mystified by it, it's a clear example of motivated thinking.

Chapman (and NIMBYs in general) don't want more housing built.

They also have sympathy for those who cannot find housing.

Therefore they must believe that there is lots of housing in existence but isn't available.

If they didn't believe this, they would be the bad guy, and that's not something anyone is willing to believe.

The vast majority of the population do not reason using facts, but instead reason using emotion.

While I'm no longer mystified that this 'vacant condo' myth exists, I am frustrated when it doesn't seem like those who hold it (especially elected officials) feel like they need to back it up by any evidence at all. And, IMO, the Record seems to align with some of this thinking and don't seem to be asking (or looking for) any evidence to support such claims.

[robson ward 9]

Matthew Robson was a disgrace. Robson was constantly ignoring the the time's up bells, constantly getting up and walking out, had to be reminded to put his facemask on multiple times, interrupted the other candidates multiple times. And his answers were just vapid rambling, showing that he had not prepared at all. Disrespectful of the time and work the organisers put into this, disrespectful of the audience's time, disrespectful of the other candidates.

I'm someone that has met Matthew personally prior to this, hence the anonymous account. His current behaviour, including the decision to run for office, is the result of a pretty severe mental health crisis stemming from family issues. When in good health he'd probably be a decent councillor, but obviously he's in no shape to be holding office right now. I'm not suggesting anyone vote for him, but I think some compassion in how we discuss him is warranted.

I was a disgrace that evening. A little background, earlier that morning I learned that a friend from the golf industry had passed away in a motorcycle accident on Tuesday evening. I wasn't my best and was disrespectful to the church and organizers. I am sorry for this. 

I'll provide a more formal response in short order but I'm representing those who need it (those without housing) vs. the establishment and established neighbourhoods. If I don't feel i'm going to be able to win, I will put my support behind Brooklin as I feel she has the best opportunity to oppose the academic who doesn't understand basic economics or construction financing. 

Talk soon. RIP Jolley.

[robson ward 9]

I almost want to watch it for morbid curiosity.  But my blood pressure does not need listening to Chapman NIMBY for an hour and a half.

I share the same sentiment. 

It's challenging to hear things which are not true Councillor Chapman. 

I'll be better going forward, promise.

[robson ward 9]

I am not mystified by it, it's a clear example of motivated thinking.

Chapman (and NIMBYs in general) don't want more housing built.

They also have sympathy for those who cannot find housing.

Therefore they must believe that there is lots of housing in existence but isn't available.

If they didn't believe this, they would be the bad guy, and that's not something anyone is willing to believe.

The vast majority of the population do not reason using facts, but instead reason using emotion.

While I'm no longer mystified that this 'vacant condo' myth exists, I am frustrated when it doesn't seem like those who hold it (especially elected officials) feel like they need to back it up by any evidence at all. And, IMO, the Record seems to align with some of this thinking and don't seem to be asking (or looking for) any evidence to support such claims.

100

[Bytor]

Debbie Chapman trying to convince us that the economic law of supply and demand somehow doesn't apply to housing.

https://www.tiktok.com/@bytor1970/video/...8278816006

https://twitter.com/Bytor/status/1574172976110501889

[fakepnijjar]

Video of Ward 9 debate is up at https://youtu.be/5WVvTDuPdyg in 360p with the 1080p still processing, so probably another hour, potentially 2, for that.

Thanks for this. I have linked it in on the https://waterlooregionvotes.org site.

[danbrotherston]

I am not mystified by it, it's a clear example of motivated thinking.

Chapman (and NIMBYs in general) don't want more housing built.

They also have sympathy for those who cannot find housing.

Therefore they must believe that there is lots of housing in existence but isn't available.

If they didn't believe this, they would be the bad guy, and that's not something anyone is willing to believe.

The vast majority of the population do not reason using facts, but instead reason using emotion.

While I'm no longer mystified that this 'vacant condo' myth exists, I am frustrated when it doesn't seem like those who hold it (especially elected officials) feel like they need to back it up by any evidence at all. And, IMO, the Record seems to align with some of this thinking and don't seem to be asking (or looking for) any evidence to support such claims.

Sorry dtkmelissa, I hope I'm not harping on you too much here lol.

The clearest example I've seen of this type of thinking came a few years ago, maybe a decade ago, during some climate testimony in the US congress. One person who was called to testify was a theology/english literacy professor.

They argued that climate change isn't a big risk and that humans aren't causing it. They explained that this narrative was more compelling and positive, therefore it was the right one. For a lot of people (I suspect, the majority) facts and evidence aren't relevant, the question of "what evidence is there" doesn't really make sense. What *is* relevant is what is a compelling story and narrative. If you ask "what evidence" they reply with emotional explanations of why they prefer it to be true, because that's how they interpret the world. The "evidence" is their preference.

That's why I think articles like this one from time: https://time.com/5669022/climate-change-2050/ are important because they try to tell a compelling narrative where we do the right thing for something like climate change and how well it turns out. This kind of article will convince far more of those using motivated thinking than all the statistics in the world.

To convince Debbie Chapman and her followers we need to tell a narrative tell a story of how building more housing gives us a stronger healthier happier community. That is the only thing that will convince them. It doesn't even have to be true, just compelling.