This morning the sun rose in the east. The morning rush hour traffic on the DVP was stop-and-go. A homeless man who spent the night on a Bay Street grate got up and rolled up his sleeping bag to begin his day wandering the streets of Toronto. Somewhere in Etobicoke, a couple discussed their bills over breakfast.
Yesterday’s election results did not surprise Torontonians.
As the media had predicted, John Tory easily cruised into a third term. Tory received 62% (342,158 votes) of the vote. Second-place finisher Gil Penalosa received under 18% (98,525 votes). The media also predicted a low voter turnout; unfortunately, they were right. Only 29.2% of eligible voters voted in the mayoral race, well below the record low of 40.9% in 2018.
Apparently, 70% of Torontonians were not angry enough with John Tory to vote him out. It could also be argued that none of the mayoral candidates presented themselves as a compelling alternative to John Tory.
Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t is what gives incumbents their advantage. An additional advantage an incumbent has is that candidates challenge them to fail to answer “Why?”
The “Why?” candidates seeking to become mayor of North America’s 4th largest city needed to answer were:
Why does their leadership experience, if any, make them the best candidate and, more importantly, would make them a better mayor than John Tory?
Why does their community involvement, if any, make them the best candidate and, more importantly, would make them a better mayor than John Tory?
Rather than answering these questions, candidates thought it made strategic sense to continuously bash John Tory. As well as attack politics, this election was dominated by identity politics and hot-button labeling due to candidates’ desperation for votes. Many so-called progressive candidates spent their entire campaign blaming John Tory for Toronto’s many “ills.”
Mayoral and council candidates would have fared better if they had spent less time attacking—a telltale sign they have nothing substantial to offer—and more time presenting how they would set the table for the people’s success.
It is commendable that John Tory ran a clean campaign. He never engaged in attack politics, entertained the taunts of the mayoral candidate, or got baited into debates knowing it would only result in a bash fest. Instead, he put his head down and focused on running his campaign. The Arabic proverb, “The dog’s bark, but the caravan moves on,” comes to mind.
What makes many candidates believe that constantly attacking their opponent will give them credibility or political clout? The key to political success: Knowing the right people and being surrounded by the right team and supporters, not mudslinging.
Mayoral candidates grossly underestimate what it takes to be elected mayor of a city with a population of 6.3 million, which is larger than any province in Canada except Quebec. Running for mayor of Toronto is equivalent to running for a provincial premiership. Think about all that goes into becoming premier of, say, Alberta (pop. 4.5 million), British Columbia (pop. 5.2 million), or New Brunswick (pop. 794,300).
Becoming mayor of a city the size of Toronto requires a high level of ambition coupled with political moxie. I feel like candidates thought they could show up on the scene, make a few cliché promises that they would “fix things,” point fingers at who was to blame for “the mess,” and without any team, money, or name recognition, become Toronto’s next mayor.
Were mayoral candidates not aware they were facing off against John Tory’s well-oiled political machine?
Three issues were central to Toronto’s election:
Crime
Housing (affordability)
Transit
Not of concern for most Torontonians:
Free Wi-Fi on TTC.
Able to drink alcohol in parks. (I have never had someone say, “How I wish I could drink in the parks! That would make all the difference for my lifestyle.”)
More bike lanes.
Reinstating city employees who were fired for refusing to get vaccinated against COVID.
Yes, these issues, and many others, matter to pockets of Torontonians. However, candidates needed to speak to all Torontonians to win votes; thus, they needed to craft their platform around issues that all Torontonians are concerned about. Candidates’ biggest mistake was speaking only to their bubble instead of speaking to all Torontonians.
Toronto mayoral candidates did not read the room.
As a result of not reading the room correctly, mayoral candidates made miscalculations that cost them votes, the most significant of which were:
Would bring back carding by the police. (Blake Acton)
Proposed to replace Billy Bishop airport park. (Gil Penalosa)
Acton and Climenhaga opened cans of worms that most Torontonians would have preferred remained unopened. Penalosa created a new “What the hell!” by proposing Canada’s 10th busiest airport be turned into a 215-acre public park.
During his past two terms, John Tory kept property taxes at or below the rate of inflation, which he promised to continue doing (Why add to Toronto’s affordability issue.), and he attracted new business, thus creating jobs and economic opportunities. The meat and potatoes of winning elections are promising to keep taxes low and create jobs.
In several instances, Tory’s opponents made proposals that raised fears that property taxes might have to be increased to fulfill their promises. Explaining how you will pay for your election promises is basic Politics 101. Voters turn off candidates who create “taxes will have to be increased” fear.
Not voting = Not angry at John Tory or not wanting what the challenging candidates offer.
Torontonians who told me they would not be voting gave me two reasons:
They were not angry enough with John Tory to vote him out of office.
They were not motivated enough to want what any of the challenging candidates offered and were okay with letting Tory win a 3rd term. (READ: “I don’t believe any of the candidates would be better than John Tory.”).
The first reason is painted in logical poetry. The second reason also has logical poetry when equated to how people will stand in line for 10 – 20 minutes, sometimes longer, to get what is at the end of the line. Think of the lineups you see at Starbucks or Tim Hortons. People are in line because they want what’s being offered. People will find the time to line up for coffee, concert tickets, a job or whatever, as long as what is being offered is something they want.
Candidates are not owed media coverage.
Of course, the unelected candidates will have their excuses. Lack of media coverage will likely be the number one excuse. Media outlets, businesses that rely on advertising revenue and therefore must attract eyeballs, do not owe candidates coverage. Like all businesses, media outlets look after what’s in their best interest—to report news that is deemed newsworthy (READ: Will attract eyeballs.). Simply saying that if you are not Toronto’s next mayor, the city will implode does not make you newsworthy. In the same way, votes must be earned, media coverage must also be earned.
It is a candidate’s job, not the media’s, to get their message out to vote, to craft their message so it resonates, and to motivate voters to vote for them. In the age of social media, candidates no longer have to rely solely on “the media” to spread their message.
Another excuse will be not having name recognition. “It’s not fair, incumbents have name recognition!” Lack of community involvement is why a candidate does not have name recognition. Candidates had years prior to this election to become known in their community.
Insufficient money will be another excuse. Candidates who are visible, have a compelling platform and have cultivated relationships with the right people will attract donors. It is no secret that entering politics requires money, which is why candidates must present themselves, their platform, and their political ideology in such a way that donors will be drawn to them.
Some unsolicited advice for those considering running in 2026.
If you have even a slight itch to run for mayor or council in 2026, now is the time to begin positioning yourself as a serious contender. When running for mayor of a city with over 6 million residents—you are not running to be mayor of Englehart, Ontario (pop. 1,442)—you cannot be an unknown candidate. It takes years to prepare for a Toronto municipal election, whether to become mayor or sit on the city council.
You need to craft an image that makes Torontonians envision you as the mayor of Toronto. Establishing a robust social media presence will be even more crucial in four years as people continue to adopt social media to stay updated is essential. Start lining up the money (financial backers/donors) you know you will need.
Now is the time to start putting together a team (e.g., campaign manager, communication manager, social media manager, fundraising manager ) and developing relationships that will benefit your end goal of being elected. Attempting to become the mayor of Toronto or win a seat on city council by yourself is a foolhardy endeavour. Nobody has ever become the mayor of Toronto campaigning as a one-person show, which many candidates, in this election and previous, have tried to do.
Most importantly, don’t enter the 2026 Toronto election as an unknown. Be visible in your community. (You don’t need to be elected to make a difference in your community.)
Go into the 2026 Toronto election known, hungry, and financially prepared, surrounded by a team. Use the next four years to learn how to market yourself and how to attract attention that gets news coverage (Make friends with the media.). Do all this and more, and you may have a chance of winning in 2026.
There are no shortcuts to Toronto’s city hall.
As someone who has traveled extensively throughout the world, I see Toronto for what it has become, a megacity that is no better or worse than any other major Western metropolis. (e.g., New York City, Los Angeles, London, Berlin, Vancouver) Name a city without crime, homelessness, and housing problems. Toronto is not immune to the social issues every metropolis faces.
I interpret yesterday’s election results as indicating that Torontonians believe that under Tory, Toronto is doing no better, no worse than other comparable cities. Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. As for the 70% of eligible voters who did not vote, they were satisfied enough with Tory’s performance to remain apathetic, knowing he would be re-elected.
The inevitable happened because those challenging John Tory tried to play on angry Torontonians to look favorable; however, they misread the room.
Nick Kossovan, a self-described connoisseur of human psychology, writes about what’s on his mind from Toronto. You can follow Nick on Twitter and Instagram @NKossovan
LAS VEGAS (AP) — Former U.S. Open champion Gary Woodland finished 54 holes of the wind-delayed Shriners Children’s Open knowing he’ll have his best chance at winning since brain surgery more than a year ago. Best of all Saturday was being finished.
Woodland had three birdies over his final six holes and extended his bogey-free streak to 28 holes in polishing off a 6-under 65 that gave him a share of the clubhouse lead with Las Vegas resident Kurt Kitayama, who also had a 65.
They trailed J.T. Poston and Doug Ghim by one shot when play was suspended by darkness. Thirty of the 66 players who made the cut earlier Saturday did not finish.
Poston had an eagle during his closing stretch of the second round for a 65, and his only sub-par hole in the third round was an eagle on the par-5 ninth. It put him at 15-under par through 13 holes. Also at 15 under was Ghim, who had four straight birdies and was facing a five-foot par putt on the 17th hole when it was too dark to continue.
Woodland had surgery in September 2023 to remove a lesion on his brain, situated on a tract that caused fear and anxiety. It’s been a long road back of making progress with his health, getting dialed in on the right medication and trying to get his game in order.
He also went back to Randy Smith, the PGA Hall of Fame swing coach in Dallas. Now Woodland is sensing the pieces coming back together.
“I feel a lot better for one,” Woodland said. “That’s a huge help. But I’ve seen some signs. I’ve been back with Randy Smith for a couple months now. I am starting to drive it better, iron play, controlling the golf ball like I haven’t in a long time, which is nice. Then putts start going in, start putting some good scores up.
“I’m excited and happy to be here — and really happy to finish tonight so I can get some sleep tomorrow.”
The third round was to resume at 8 a.m., and Woodland likely will start around 11 a.m. That beats getting up before dawn, which he already has had to do twice this week.
Next to be determined is where he stands.
Harris English and Alejandro Tosti of Argentina also were at 14 under with four holes to play, including the reachable par 4 and the easiest of the three par 5s. Six other players were at 13 under and still had holes to play.
Taylor Pendrith of Richmond Hill, Ont., only completed 13 holes on Saturday and sits two shots back of the leaders. Nick Taylor of Abbotsford, B.C., is tied for 44th at 5 under. Ben Silverman of Thornhill, Ont., is tied for 61st at 3 under.
The wind has calmed substantially from Friday, when gusts approached 50 miles per hour and led to a four-hour delay that caused the stop-and-start and the last two days being suspended because of darkness. A TPC Summerlin course that was all about hanging on is now back to being a test of who can make the most birdies.
“Conditions will be pretty easy. I think you saw that with some of the scores,” Poston said. “Guys are making birdies. So I think it’s just trying to stay aggressive but also stay patient if the putts don’t fall early because there is a lot of holes left.”
The second round didn’t end until about noon Saturday and the cut was at 3-under 139. Among those who missed was Tom Kim, the two-time defending champion who was trying to become the first player since Steve Stricker at the John Deere Classic (2009-11) to win the same PGA Tour event three straight years.
Also missing the cut were the three winners in the FedEx Cup Fall — Patton Kizzire, Kevin Yu and Matt McCarty.
TORONTO – Simple Plan is getting the documentary treatment.
The Canadian pop-punk band will be the subject of a forthcoming documentary on Prime Video, which is slated to debut sometime next year.
Lead singer Pierre Bouvier announced the partnership on stage at the When We Were Young music festival in Las Vegas on Saturday.
The untitled film from director Didier Charette is currently in production with Sphere Media.
The movie will follow Simple Plan’s formation in Montreal in the late 1990s and the band’s early success, featuring never-before-seen archival footage and fresh interviews with the musicians and their contemporaries.
Simple Plan is the latest in a series of Canadian musicians to be profiled on Prime Video, after “I Am: Celine Dion” in June and “The Tragically Hip: No Dress Rehearsal,” which premièred at the Toronto International Film Festival in September.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 19, 2024.
The world’s final glimpse of Hamas’ leader was rough and raw, showing him wounded and cornered as he sat in a bombed-out Palestinian home and faced down the Israeli drone filming him, hurling a stick at it.
For Israel, the scene was one of victory, showing Yahya Sinwar, the architect of Oct. 7, broken and defeated.
But many in the Arab and Muslim world — whether supporters of Hamas or not — saw something different in the grainy footage: a defiant martyr who died fighting to the end.
Clips from the released drone footage went viral on social media, accompanied by quotes from Sinwar’s speeches in which he declared that he would rather die on the battlefield. An oil painting of a masked Sinwar sitting proudly on an armchair was widely shared, apparently inspired by the last image of him alive.
“By broadcasting the last minutes of the life of Yahya Sinwar, the occupation made his life longer than the lives of his killers,” Osama Gaweesh, an Egyptian media personality and journalist, wrote on social media.
In Gaza, reactions to Sinwar’s death were mixed. Some mourned his killing, while others expressed relief and hope that it could bring an end to the devastating war triggered by the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel that he is said to have directed. Across the Arab and Muslim world, and away from the devastation in Gaza, opinions varied.
One thing, though, was clear. The footage was hailed by supporters and even some critics as evidence of a man killed in confrontation who at least wasn’t hidden in a tunnel surrounded by hostages as Israel has said he was for much of the last year.
Three days after he was killed, Israel’s military dropped leaflets in south Gaza, showing another image of Sinwar lying dead on a chair, with his finger cut and blood running down his forehead. “Sinwar destroyed your lives. He hid in a dark hole and was liquidated while escaping fearfully,” the leaflet said.
“I don’t think there is a Palestinian leader of the first rank who died in a confrontation (like Sinwar), according to what the leaked Israeli version shows,” said Sadeq Abu Amer, head of the Palestinian Dialogue Group, an Istanbul-based think tank.
Sinwar’s demise was different
Unlike Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh, who was killed in his hotel room in Iran, or the leader of Lebanon’s Hezbollah group Hassan Nasrallah, bombed in an underground bunker by dozens of massive munitions, Sinwar was killed while apparently fighting Israeli forces, more than a year after the war began.
Iran, the Shiite powerhouse and a main backer of Hamas, went further. It contrasted Sinwar’s death with that of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Tehran’s archenemy.
In a statement by Iran’s U.N. Mission, it said Saddam appeared disheveled out of an underground hole, dragged by U.S. forces while “he begged them not to kill him despite being armed.” Sinwar, on the other hand, was killed in the open while “facing the enemy,” Iran said.
In a strongly worded statement, the Cairo-based Al-Azhar, the highest seat of Sunni Muslim learning in the world, blasted Israel’s portrayal of Sinwar as a terrorist. Without naming Sinwar, the statement said that the “martyrs of the resistance” died defending their land and their cause.
In Israel, the army’s Arabic-speaking spokesperson, Avichay Adraee, described Sinwar as “defeated, outcast, and persecuted.” Many celebrated the news of the killing of the architect of the Oct. 7 attack.
Video posted online showed a lifeguard on a Tel Aviv beach announcing the news to applause, while Israeli media showed soldiers handing out sweets. Residents of Sderot, a town that was attacked by Hamas militants, were filmed dancing on the streets, some wrapped in Israeli flags. On Telegram, some shared pictures of a dead Sinwar, likening him to a rat.
But there were also protests from families of hostages and their supporters who want Israeli leaders to use the moment to bring the hostages home.
Some are energized, not demoralized
Susan Abulhawa, one of the most widely read Palestinian authors, said the images released by Israel were a source of pride. Israel “thought that publishing footage of Sinwar’s last moments would demoralize us, make us feel defeat,” she wrote on X. “In reality, the footage immortalizes Sinwar and galvanizes all of us to have courage and resolve until the last moment.”
In the Palestinian territories and Lebanon, some remembered him with respect, while others expressed anger.
“He died as a fighter, as a martyr,” said Somaia Mohtasib, a Palestinian displaced from Gaza City.
For Saleh Shonnar, a resident of north Gaza now displaced to the center, tens of thousands of Palestinians were killed. “Hundreds, tens of senior leaders were martyred and replaced with new leaders.”
In Khan Younis, Sinwar’s birthplace, mourners in a bombed-out mosque recited the funeral prayer for a Muslim when the body is missing. Israel has kept Sinwar’s body. Dozens of men and children took part in the prayers.
And in Wadi al-Zayne, a town in Lebanon’s Chouf region with a significant Palestinian population, Bilal Farhat said that Sinwar’s death made him a symbol of heroic resistance.
“He died fighting on the front line. It gives him some sort of mystical hero aura,” Farhat said.
Some Palestinians took to X to criticize Sinwar and dismiss his death in comparison to their own suffering. One speaker on a recorded discussion said there is no way of telling how he died. Another blamed him for 18 years of suffering, calling him a “crazy man” who started a war he couldn’t win. “If he is dear, we had many more dear ones killed,” one yelled.
In the long run, the think tank’s Abu Amer said that the effect of the support and empathy for Sinwar after his death is unlikely to change the Arab public’s view of Oct. 7 and what followed.
“Those who supported Oct. 7 will continue to, and those who opposed Oct. 7 — and they are many — will keep their opinions, even if they show sympathy or admiration for him. Most Palestinians are now focused on ending the war,” he said.
___
Fatma Khaled reported from Cairo. Julia Frankel and Ibrahim Hazboun in Jerusalem, Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations, Amir Vahdat in Tehran, Iran, Sally Abou AlJoud in Beirut, and Wafaa Shurafa in Deir al-Balah, Gaza Strip, contributed to this report .
