David Norris and Adi Roche

Fr Tod Umptious

With Norris around the 6% mark in the tallies I think it's time to take out this graph from the 1997 election showing Roche's dive from 30+% poll rating in September to -10% actual first preference votes as I promised to do on one of the long since closed Norris threads

Figure 1: Campaign polls showing each candidate’s share of (first) preference votes., page 37

Teclo

Lady candidates just don't have the stamina.

Zubeneschamali

Gallagher's graph is going to be the interesting one this time.

Fr Tod Umptious

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Gallagher's graph is going to be the interesting one this time.

I really don't care what Gallagher's graph will look like

The point is that people who questioned Norris's support back before nominations closed were told time and time again to look at the opinion polls for proof that he was the most popular out there.

And surprisingly he was never a hot topic in the campaign once nominations closed, there was letters controversy in the first week but after that he was hardly in the news so there can be no accusation of a media witch hunt.

kev9100

Teclo wrote: »

Lady candidates just don't have the stamina.

Joke fail on an epic scale.

Zubeneschamali

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The point is that people who questioned Norris's support back before nominations closed were told time and time again to look at the opinion polls for proof that he was the most popular out there.

In support of your point, you post a graph showing that Adi Roche was also popular at the start of her campaign.

Which proves? What exactly?

Support goes up and down?

monkeybutter

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

With Norris around the 6% mark in the tallies I think it's time to take out this graph from the 1997 election showing Roche's dive from 30+% poll rating in September to -10% actual first preference votes as I promised to do on one of the long since closed Norris threads

Figure 1: Campaign polls showing each candidate’s share of (first) preference votes., page 37

Are you actually making a point sham?

Or are you saying a candidate can receive -10% of the first preference vote?


Or are you breaking ground here by saying public opinion sways from the before the start of an election to polling day, cause that is pretty deep stuff.

Fr Tod Umptious

monkeybutter wrote: »

Are you actually making a point sham?

Or are you saying a candidate can receive -10% of the first preference vote?


Or are you breaking ground here by saying public opinion sways from the before the start of an election to polling day, cause that is pretty deep stuff.

A number of weeks ago before Norris was nominated there were posters who claimed that our democratic system was flawed, and implied that local authorities were in someway subverting the will of the majority (based on opinion polls) by not rushing to nominate him.

I and others argued that perhaps Norris was not as popular as the polls suggested and that the councils were not ignoring the will of the people, I used Ad Richer in 1997 as an example.

Most Norris supporters would not accept that he would fall in such a manner.

Ozymandius2011

I think what it shows is that a Presidential Election is different from a General Election. I think Adi Roche lacked the constitutional expertise - but not the heart - to be an effective President. Proposing to allow a Traveller encampment in Aras on Uachtaran made her campaign a laughing-stock. As someone whose voting intentions repeatedly shifted as I searched have for an Independent candidate I could support (with a brief flirtation with McGuinness because of Europe), I have found myself favouring candidates I feel are getting stick from the media including Norris, then Dana, then McGuinness and finally Gallagher. I was 17 in 1997 and formerly a Leftie, so it's not outside the realms of possibility I would hsave voted for her in 1997, as uninformed and uneducated as I was then. Thanks God I didn't have the vote then.

Fr Tod Umptious

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I think what it shows is that a Presidential Election is different from a General Election. I think Adi Roche lacked the constitutional expertise - but not the heart - to be an effective President. Proposing to allow a Traveller encampment in Aras on Uachtaran made her campaign a laughing-stock. As someone whose voting intentions repeatedly shifted as I searched have for an Independent candidate I could support (with a brief flirtation with McGuinness because of Europe), I have found myself favouring candidates I feel are getting stick from the media including Norris, then Dana, then McGuinness and finally Gallagher. I was 17 in 1997 and formerly a Leftie, so it's not outside the realms of possibility I would hsave voted for her in 1997, as uninformed and uneducated as I was then. Thanks God I didn't have the vote then.

I think it also shows that the nomination process is not as flawed as people like to think.

K-9

Well Gallagher, Norris, Davis and Dana got in by the same process, nearly half the votes. The system is there to be used and the people got their say, not a press campaign.

foggy_lad

Norris was nominated finally by county councils who did not want to be accused of stifling the democratic process, or being homophobic. if the councils were to vote without all the media nonsense which surrounded their decisions he would not have been in the race because nobody wanted him as president.

Jeboa Safari

Is it true that Davis used up 12 councils so they couldn't be used by others?

ballsymchugh

foggy_lad wrote: »

Norris was nominated finally by county councils who did not want to be accused of stifling the democratic process, or being homophobic. if the councils were to vote without all the media nonsense which surrounded their decisions he would not have been in the race because nobody wanted him as president.

it's funny that when you hear about people complaining about the democratic process being stifled, they quickly brushed over the fact that mattie mcgrath actually went to his constituents and asked them if they wanted him to nominate norris. it was 3 to 1 against.

K-9

foggy_lad wrote: »

Norris was nominated finally by county councils who did not want to be accused of stifling the democratic process, or being homophobic. if the councils were to vote without all the media nonsense which surrounded their decisions he would not have been in the race because nobody wanted him as president.

A few councils didn't back him so that doesn't really stack up for me.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Is it true that Davis used up 12 councils so they couldn't be used by others?

I don't know if it was 12 but I'd read she went past the requisite 4, 7/8 maybe.

Gergiev

Is it true that Davis used up 12 councils so they couldn't be used by others?

I don't know if it was 12 but I'd read she went past the requisite 4, 7/8 maybe.

I think it was 12 alright.

There are 2 ways of looking at this -

On the one hand, it could be considered mean-spirited as other potential candidates were desperately seeking council nominations right up to the deadline and Davis had taken a surplus of 8 of them out of the equation unnecessarily as she was already on her way.

The other way of looking at it is that she had made her mind up in plenty of time and set about wooing as many councils as possible - months in advance - to guarantee a nomination and it wasn't up to her to worry about others who were less organised or indecisive about it.

The benefit of continuing is that it's quite an exotic thing to appear in front of a county council to seek a presidential nomination so a large amount of local press coverage is guaranteed, an attractive proposition for an independent candidate campaigning without the benefit of a large party machine behind them.

It should also be remembered that FG and Labour had over a spare 100 Oireachtas nominations left unused and also FF decided not too use their 33 or so so it's maybe unfair to criticize independents who maximise the council nomination system to boost their profile...

CrystalLettuce

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

A number of weeks ago before Norris was nominated there were posters who claimed that our democratic system was flawed, and implied that local authorities were in someway subverting the will of the majority (based on opinion polls) by not rushing to nominate him.

I and others argued that perhaps Norris was not as popular as the polls suggested and that the councils were not ignoring the will of the people, I used Ad Richer in 1997 as an example.

Most Norris supporters would not accept that he would fall in such a manner.

The issue is that the results of the presidential election were largely determined by the media, not informed voters. People were naive to think that having Norris entered into the race would ensure informed "Democracy".

anymore

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

A number of weeks ago before Norris was nominated there were posters who claimed that our democratic system was flawed, and implied that local authorities were in someway subverting the will of the majority (based on opinion polls) by not rushing to nominate him.

I and others argued that perhaps Norris was not as popular as the polls suggested and that the councils were not ignoring the will of the people, I used Ad Richer in 1997 as an example.

Most Norris supporters would not accept that he would fall in such a manner.

I am afraid in the Irish Times toady Norris is blaming ' some newspaper editors and journalists for his failure:
"
He said that it had been a dirty campaign. “Inaccurate and very damaging statements were made about me in sections of the media.
“I have had apologies, but it is too little, too late. If I do not make the quota, it will be clearly because of the action of some newspaper editors and journalists.”
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1029/1224306734990.html

What apologies is he talking about ?

FloatingVoter

Yeah, Davis tied up councils beyong her needed 4. Gallagher released his surplus councils AFAIK.

She lost a preference from me over that trick. Wouldn't have made a difference anyway as I voted 1. Norris 2. MDH.

Happyman42

He's just spinning for the sympathy vote. AFAIK The Sunday Times just apologised for misquoting him, but Norris makes it sound like it was about something erroneous they reported.
Expect more of this as he tries to vindicate himself and cling on to his elite position. I would imagine Trinity aren't best pleased that he dragged their little ivory tower out for public scrutiny.

ballsymchugh

Happyman42 wrote: »

He's just spinning for the sympathy vote. AFAIK The Sunday Times just apologised for misquoting him, but Norris makes it sound like it was about something erroneous they reported.
Expect more of this as he tries to vindicate himself and cling on to his elite position. I would imagine Trinity aren't best pleased that he dragged their little ivory tower out for public scrutiny.

sarah mcinerney made that point on vinny b during the week alright. the apology wasn't as big a deal as norris tried to make it out to be.