Okay...Hatchet Man said:You can be sarcastic, or you can answer my questions and explain your reasoning and thought process. YOU are the one who said he didn't run his campaign "properly". I want to know what your "proper" campaign would have been. I also want to know if you honestly think having lengthly detail messages would have been in any way effective given the 24/7-instant/twitter media word western politics inhabits.
Promising a million jobs and making no effort dispel the notion, that this implies better than 100% employment (in that there are fewer than 1 million people out of work in the province). The idea is laughable but not what the plan is actually about. It hardly takes a huge tome to explain what he actually meant. It was hoping a quick slogan would suffice.
Instead of saying "we'll reduce numbers by attrition", etc, he went with the far snappier "cutting 100,000 jobs" hoping that the basic resentment people have against 'comfy government jobs' would suffice to rally the electorate. There was so much else he could have talked about that would have met a fair more receptive ear but he didn't chose that.
LBJ said that 'for every job you cut you lose 5 votes'. I also believe that no one really believes a politician when they promise to create jobs.
Hudak did both on steroids.
He could have talked about his transportation plans for the GTA. He could have talked about his plan to help universities prepare people better for jobs, he could have done any number of things but he led with nice slow pitch across the plate that a child could have hit out of the park.