the reason these attack ads have been successful is not because they provide a reason to vote for stephen harper. and, the evidence regarding turnout is that they actually have not been successful in convincing people to vote for stephen harper. rather, what they've been successful at is suppressing liberal voters. and, the reason they've been successful is because they've been broadly accurate - they've pointed out valid reasons why liberal voters should have stayed at home over the last few elections.
dion is a bit of an exception. he had a challenging platform that nobody should have expected an easy road to governance on. and, he managed to keep harper to a minority. it's hard to rewrite history. but, on a literal level they were accurate. he was not an alpha leader. he had a consensus style of leadership. chretien and trudeau were, in fact, alpha leaders. now, i do prefer the idea of consensus leadership styles - i'm a leftist. but nobody should argue with the premise. rather, the argument should have been that we live in a democracy. we're not russia. we're not strong like bear, strong like vodka. they dropped the opportunity to make a point about democracy because they didn't understand there was a point to make. the ads didn't kill him - they were correct. he was killed by his strategists, and by himself, for not reacting on his own terms.
but, everything stated about ignatieff was accurate. he got his ass handed to him, and deserved it. he couldn't win his riding. and, he bolted the day after the election, to never be heard from again. but, the ads were just pointing out the obvious. the more important question is how the hell he ended up running for office in the first place. if you'd have told me in 2003 that the liberals would have a leader that supported the war in iraq and argues for the use of torture, i'd have laughed at you. the reform party didn't even argue for torture. pointing these things out to liberals had the effect of seeing themselves in the mirror, and they smashed the mirror in disgust. ignatieff lost because of his writings, not in spite of them.
and, who can argue with a straight face that justin trudeau ought to be running the country? the line of liberal leaders through the years has been full of experience and stability. to get to that position required years of service, work and dedication. every single one of these people had extensive cabinet experience. if you'd have told me the liberals would have a leader that's never held a cabinet position, i'd have laughed just as hard. and, when he gets beaten down, he should not have the audacity to blame it on the attack ads. he really doesn't have the slightest business being where he is. even dubya was governor of texas, first.
the liberal party needs to come to terms with this. they've thrown out bad candidates. they've refused to defend them, when they should. they've defended them when they really shouldn't. you have to acknowledge your errors before you can learn from them. but, you don't get an infinite number of chances. not even in liberal canada...