On targets

In his comment on Angus Reid's findings about the best possible leader for an NDP/Lib coalition, Jeff unintentionally points out the reason why no replacement leader for the Libs can be expected to substantially improve the odds of taking down the Harper Cons - and why Canadians looking for change should cast their attention elsewhere:

And the X factor, of course, is the multi-million dollar demonization campaign the Conservatives unleashed on Ignatieff, and you can be sure one is sitting in a drawer on Bob.

Of course, it's undoubtedly true that any possible replacement for Ignatieff as the face of the Libs will face a similar blitz from the Cons. And the newer and less prominent any replacement is, the more devastating a campaign by the Cons is bound to be, as a consistent negative message sticks easily to a leader who lacks much public definition.

But there's a corollary to that view: a leader who's already well-defined and has a proven strategy for dealing with Con attacks makes for a far less juicy target. And while the Cons' strategy has been effective in smearing new leaders at a point where they aren't yet household names, it's been less so in attacking Layton in the past.

Remember that the Con response to the 2008 coalition included all-out slams on Layton and the NDP as coalition partners - which managed to affect Layton's numbers only temporarily. And with Layton now back on top as the most popular federal leader based on his work over the course of seven years at the helm of the NDP, it seems safe to say that the Cons will have a much tougher time tearing him down than anybody the Libs can present to the country.

So the case for putting Layton front and centre in any discussion of coalitions is based on more than just the fact that his current numbers are higher than the Libs' contenders. There's also a far stronger likelihood that Layton's positives can withstand the worst the Cons can throw at him - and that staying power may be the key to the change Canadians want.