i'm not sure if the active campaigning really matters. i think ontarians see themselves without any real options; neither the conservatives nor the ndp have been electable in ontario for quite a long time, and it's hard to see how either are going to cobble together a coalition any time soon. the conservative grass roots is widely seen as a bunch of lunatics. and, the ndp has had a really nasty ceiling imposed upon them by their inability to appeal to unionized voters, which has forced them to take some very disappointing positions.

i think what's more to the point is whether allegiances from the provincial election may still be lingering, and if they may even be more formative than federal platforms, because people tend to be more engaged at the local level. it gives the liberal a kind of incumbency advantage, and hurts the ndp by association. and, as i've pointed out in a few other places, i think the results of the last election need to be taken with a grain of salt; a lot of very liberal ridings swung blue last election, as a consequence of somewhat unique circumstances. these people aren't going to require a lot of convincing to go back to their normal voting patterns. it's just a question of trudeau not being the guy that wrote op-eds in support of an illegal war.

where i think wynne can make a difference is in providing a couple of good arguments as to why it benefits ontarians to have a change of government. not attending rallies and standing together on stage, or maybe offering a few empty platitudes. a good essay. and, there's plenty of good reasons, too - she doesn't need to make anything up, she just needs to clearly lay it out.

but, that's likely to be minor - perhaps important, but minor. overall, it's less a question of the ontario liberals doing or being anything specific, and more a question of the federal liberals not being the specific kind of awful they were four years ago.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/peter-landry/kathleen-wynne-federal-election-harper_b_8112968.html