Winnipeg 2014 - Vote Poll - Page 2

bomberjet · #21 Posted **Oct 23, 2014, 1:46 AM**

The Falcon has as strong showing thus far! A solid third, double the votes over Steeves.

cheswick · #22 Posted **Oct 23, 2014, 1:47 AM**

CTV projecting Bowman the new mayor

The Jabroni · #23 Posted **Oct 23, 2014, 1:47 AM**

Looks like "Bow-mentum" is real.

For those who want to keep track, the city website has the results pinned down pretty good, as they're coming in.

http://winnipeg.ca/clerks/election/e...lts/index.html

cheswick · #24 Posted **Oct 23, 2014, 2:13 AM**

So in the end it wasn't even close. Bowman won by a wide margin. His lead over JWL is greater than her lead over oulette

alittle1 · #25 Posted **Oct 23, 2014, 2:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Jabroni

Looks like "Bow-mentum" is real.

For those who want to keep track, the city website has the results pinned down pretty good, as they're coming in.

http://winnipeg.ca/clerks/election/e...lts/index.html

That link is a dud. Try http://winnipeg.ca/clerks/election/e...3/ar/2/ct/1001

roccerfeller · #26 Posted **Oct 23, 2014, 2:28 AM**

whoa, Bowman swept it!

biguc · #27 Posted **Oct 23, 2014, 2:37 AM**

So much for polls. Bowman nearly doubles Judith's numbers.

esquire · #28 Posted **Oct 23, 2014, 3:48 AM**

Bowman and the Falcon have launched their political careers with gusto; Steeves, Havixbeck and JWL have probably ruined theirs. A true generational shift today.

The Unknown Poster · #29 Posted **Oct 23, 2014, 1:51 PM**

Im truly shocked by the numbers, not so much that Bowman won but that it wasnt even close. And that The Falcon did so well. Bowman's gains didnt come from The Falcon.

Judy lost support to everyone. This election was an utter rejection of her.

esquire · #30 Posted **Oct 23, 2014, 2:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unknown Poster

Im truly shocked by the numbers, not so much that Bowman won but that it wasnt even close. And that The Falcon did so well. Bowman's gains didnt come from The Falcon.

Judy lost support to everyone. This election was an utter rejection of her.

I'm glad to see the two candidates who ran on reasonably ambitious and thoughtful platforms get richly rewarded.

Judy seemed convinced that her lead was impenetrable so she refused to say anything. Gord Steeves ran on some Rob Ford-wannabe reactionary campaign. Both are polarizing figures with no appeal outside of their hardcore ideological bases. It did not bother me to see both of them finish well below expectations.

Bowman is OK, but maybe next time we'll get a real urbanist mayoral candidate.

Riverman · #31 Posted **Oct 23, 2014, 4:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Bowman is OK, but maybe next time we'll get a real urbanist mayoral candidate.

Why would it be good to have a mayoral candidate that represents such a small portion of the population?

esquire · #32 Posted **Oct 23, 2014, 4:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Why would it be good to have a mayoral candidate that represents such a small portion of the population?

As opposed to the ones who seem mainly interested in carrying out the will of a dozen or so land developers?

Riverman · #33 Posted **Oct 23, 2014, 4:16 PM**

No - an enormous majority of Winnipeggers live in the suburbs. Almost no one lives downtown. Why would an urbanist mayor be better for the people of Winnipeg?

esquire · #34 Posted **Oct 23, 2014, 4:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

No - an enormous majority of Winnipeggers live in the suburbs. Almost no one lives downtown. Why would an urbanist mayor be better for the people of Winnipeg?

Being urbanist does not mean ignoring the suburbs or being anti-suburb. It's about having an interest and understanding of how urban areas (including the downtown and its suburbs) work. It speaks to a certain element of wonkishness, not to pitting one part of town against another.

It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, and to focus on making both inner city and suburbs better over the course of the same mayoralty.

Riverman · #35 Posted **Oct 23, 2014, 4:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, and to focus on making both inner city and suburbs better over the course of the same mayoralty.

That has nothing at all to do with being an urbanist. That has to do with being a good leader. I think an urbanist would focus on urban issues alone and would be anti-suburb.

Simplicity · #36 Posted **Oct 23, 2014, 4:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

As opposed to the ones who seem mainly interested in carrying out the will of a dozen or so land developers?

See, this right here. This is just inflammatory. The idea that councilors are swayed by a few developers and not citizens is just simply not true. Yesterday proved that incumbent candidates are very much at risk of running afoul of their constituents. They are far more interested in placating the citizen's brigade than a few developers who don't even live in their riding. Council does a pretty good job at carrying out the will of the people whether that will is in or counter to the best interests of the collective.

If you're dissatisfied with the way the city has unfolded, that's fair enough; but your ax to grind is with the citizens, not the developers. And while we know what the best long-term solution for the city is, the idea of urban living in Winnipeg is still very much a fringe idea. The best we can hope for is that we have a mayor who at least pays attention to downtown in some capacity because the idea that Downtown Winnipeg ever becomes a hot-button election issue is many years off, if it ever happens.

steveosnyder · #37 Posted **Oct 23, 2014, 4:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

That has nothing at all to do with being an urbanist. That has to do with being a good leader. I think an urbanist would focus on urban issues alone and would be anti-suburb.

Just so you know "focusing on urban issues" can result in a positive-sum game. Focusing on urban issues is not anti-suburban.

esquire · #38 Posted **Oct 23, 2014, 5:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simplicity

See, this right here. This is just inflammatory. The idea that councilors are swayed by a few developers and not citizens is just simply not true. Yesterday proved that incumbent candidates are very much at risk of running afoul of their constituents.

Hey now, you even suggested as much in your earlier posts on the subject (which turned out to be remarkably prophetic, kudos):

Quote:

Yup. This is the truth. But Bowman is really the only serious candidate of the bunch. He'll have the support of the Chamber and the arts community and the legal world and so forth.

He's a bona fide candidate. Like I said, everybody is going to want to ensure as seamless a transition as possible and that's going to mean business as usual. This is an expensive campaign financed by a lot of people who are going to demand something in exchange for their support (read: $). Our city is already inching toward the precipice. If there's any inkling at all that City Hall isn't prepared to play ball with the big money, it could spell trouble for development.

Expect candidates like Fielding and Havixbeck to see the writing on the wall fairly early. Steeves is a credible threat, but he's also an ex-councilor. JWL is simply "not Sam Katz" at this point and all her early polling was exclusive of any viable alternatives.

This is going to heat up pretty nicely, I'd think. Bowman's as polished as they come and he's the stalking horse on behalf of all the same interests tied to Katz right now. Somebody's going to have a tough hill to climb to beat him...

Quote:

It wasn't meant to be a harsh indictment at all. It's just referring to the fact that the same pro-development interests tied to Katz are going to need to park their influence with somebody and since Katz is unlikely to be reelected even if he does run, Bowman is a good hedge...

Riverman · #39 Posted **Oct 23, 2014, 5:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Just so you know "focusing on urban issues" can result in a positive-sum game. Focusing on urban issues is not anti-suburban.

Let's just say we disagree on that.

Simplicity · #40 Posted **Oct 23, 2014, 5:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Hey now, you even suggested as much in your earlier posts on the subject (which turned out to be remarkably prophetic, kudos):

Well, I think I should probably clarify that in some respect. There's no doubt that money is changing hands. I personally donate to numerous councilors. But this isn't councilors beholden to me or other developers - this is just an alignment of interests on behalf of citizens and developers. People really want to live in the suburbs! The reason land developers (and I stress the difference between land and real estate developers here) give money is because they want favourable concessions on many of the items that can render a subdivision unfeasible - think green spaces, walking paths, commercial centres, etc. But these aren't really items that affect the rest of the city because the damage is done; the citizens and developers got their subdivision. The battle is now how that subdivision is going to play out. And you're right, the influence peddling begins in earnest at this point.

But the stark reality in our city is that the citizens want their suburban living and those who already live in more densely populated urban areas want any further development to stop. In these cases the councilors are difficult to bend; they nearly always favour the citizens. So what we don't really have are councilors beholden to developers, we have councilors beholden to a prevailing ideal of suburban living. If you want to change that, you'll have to change the way in which people live in this city.

And I'll just mention this briefly. We can talk about insidious and latent subsidy of suburban development all day long. But the reality in our city is that the development of downtown Winnipeg is the most heavily subsidized on an upfront and ongoing basis. When I said those interests wanted money, I meant that literally - the Chipman family and whomever else will be along for the ride want huge cash subsidies and tax abatements to make their developments work. Those are not land developments, but they are nearly equally valueless to the citizens given the ways that TIFs tend to play out over time.