Red C Poll

conorh91

Bambi wrote: »

Labour actually getting 7-8%, doubt it. The margin of error for a low percentage like that is significant

How much is it? 2% or so? How is that significant?

It never ceases to amaze that so many people believe 'margin of error' means that 'anywhere in this range'.

alaimacerc

conorh91 wrote: »

How much is it? 2% or so?

3% for the standard sample size of 1000.

It never ceases to amaze that so many people believe 'margin of error' means that 'anywhere in this range'.

That's exactly what it means. Or to be more precise: it means "probably" that. One time in twenty the error is going to be larger. By the very definition of what a confidence interval is.

That's in addition to any methodological error or systemic bias that might add to the sample error per se.

Muahahaha

the groutch wrote: »

the leader popularity ratings again show that Adams needs to step down as leader before the next election, if not sooner.

You've been beating that same drum for some time now while your blinkers refuse to see how he has led the party from polling numbers of around 2% to some 21%-25% today.

Anytime I hear the 'Adams is holding back Sinn Fein and he needs to resign' mantra I always do :rolleyes:

Gerry Adams has led the fastest growth of any party in recent times and yet people call for him to resign? Somehow I doubt he is listening to those people and the mantra is getting pretty old now, especially as the polls suggest quite the opposite.

Dyr

conorh91 wrote: »

How much is it? 2% or so? How is that significant?

It never ceases to amaze that so many people believe 'margin of error' means 'anywhere in this range'.

it never cease to amaze me when the like of your good self make up beliefs and then attribute them to others.

RED C poll MOE is usually 3% for 1000 respondents. All of labour's gains and losses are within that MOE, that's not good when you're scraping along the sea bed in single figures, IMO they need to be up around 10% consistently to avoid becoming irrelvant.

conorh91

Bambi wrote: »

RED C poll MOE is usually 3% for 1000 respondents.

And...? Do you know what that means?

alaimacerc wrote: »

That's exactly what it means.

No, it isn't. It means that the stated figure is the most probable. It means that a deviation within the range becomes increasingly unlikely. It does not mean "anywhere in this range". So if the poll result is 7% with a margin of 3%, 7% is the most likely outcome, and 9.5% is improbable.

Ren2k7

Bambi wrote: »

Fianna Fail may stage a minor recovery also, memories are short and people really dislike this government.

I'm not so sure. FF have been hovering around the high teens/low twenties mark for some time now and it's looking like they'll return a similar number of TD's based on these poll numbers. FG/Lab may be despised but so too is FF. They did such a number on this country that it will probably be many years before people start trusting them again. Rather like SF where older voters distrust them but younger voters who never knew anything of the Troubles or SF's involvement in them are willing to give the Shinners a chance.

FF have pretty much lost this generation, they will have to wait many years for a new breed of voters to emerge before they can hope to gain back power.

Though ideally they would do everyone a favour and dissolve themselves like what their former coalition partners the PD's did.

Ren2k7

alaimacerc wrote: »

They do indeed, that's bang on. And the electorate generally looks to elect another bunch of incompetents on the basis that'll it'll promise to do the same thing, only magically this time it'll work out flawlessly. Hence the current "what we need is yet another redundant centre-right party or three" nonsense. Shine up same some conservative slogans, move the order of the words around a little, put some new -- but not too new! -- faces on them, and it'll be grand. Votáil Nua Progressive Fine Fail Ctrl-Alt-Delete Independent! Same policies, now with added "not voting for the same shower as last time" salve for the conscience!

It's the Irish way. FF fecked up! Vote in FG. FG fecked up! Vote back in FF! FF fecked up! Vote back in FG.......on so on.

Muahahaha wrote: »

You've been beating that same drum for some time now while your blinkers refuse to see how he has led the party from polling numbers of around 2% to some 21%-25% today.

Anytime I hear the 'Adams is holding back Sinn Fein and he needs to resign' mantra I always do :rolleyes:

Gerry Adams has led the fastest growth of any party in recent times and yet people call for him to resign? Somehow I doubt he is listening to those people and the mantra is getting pretty old now, especially as the polls suggest quite the opposite.

In fairness old Grizzly has been at this craic for some time now. And yes, he's led his party to enormous success: in govt at Stormont, leading what can really be described as the true opposition in the Dail (FF still have credibility issues) and nearly matching FG in the polls. But if SF emerges back on the opposition benches come the next election (which is probable) then I feel it may be time for Adams to step aside and let the anointed one from Dublin Central take over.

That won't be a sign of failure on his part, he should be proud of where he's led SF, from pariahs and outcasts right through to being a key and influential part of the political establishment.

alaimacerc

conorh91 wrote: »

No, it isn't. It means that the stated figure is the most probable. It means that a deviation within the range becomes increasingly unlikely. It does not mean "anywhere in this range". So if the poll result is 7% with a margin of 3%, 7% is the most likely outcome, and 9.5% is improbable.

Yes, it is. You're conflating "anywhere in the range" (which is entirely true), with "uniformly distributed across the range" -- which no-one said (until you brought it up right then), no-one thinks, and is indeed not true.

It's extremely woolly to describe the outer part of the CI as "improbable". For normally distributed data, 95% confidence is a +/- two-sigma interval. Fully 32% of the probability distribution is outside of one sigma. If you're angling for a job at CERN, don't be talking "improbable" until you're passed five sigmas...

alaimacerc

Ren2k7 wrote: »

It's the Irish way. FF fecked up! Vote in FG. FG fecked up! Vote back in FF! FF fecked up! Vote back in FG.......on so on.

Yes, but my point in that we're currently in the mode of "FG have fecked up most recent, and FF have fecked up so egregiously we can't go straight back to them, either".

"Solution"? Vote for "anyone but FF and FG" -- but ideally, someone as exactly like FF and FG as possible.

conorh91

alaimacerc wrote: »

Yes, it is. You're conflating "anywhere in the range" (which is entirely true), with "uniformly distributed across the range" --

Definition of 'anywhere': In or at any place

To say or imply that FG are currently polling in, or at any margin 3% on either side of 24% implies that there is an equal chance of FG securing 24% as 27%, simply because it is within their margin of error. This belies the fact that the margin of error contains outcomes that become less and less likely as they deviate from the centre.

Therefore, the poll does not place any party "in or at any place" within the margin of error.

The 'margin of error' is a term that is widely and deliberately misused

Dyr

conorh91 wrote: »

And...? Do you know what that means?

Might want to ease up on that internet hard case persona there chief

Ren2k7

alaimacerc wrote: »

Yes, but my point in that we're currently in the mode of "FG have fecked up most recent, and FF have fecked up so egregiously we can't go straight back to them, either".

"Solution"? Vote for "anyone but FF and FG" -- but ideally, someone as exactly like FF and FG as possible.

Yeah, we seem to have reached peak FF/FG and are now desperately looking for someone else to replace the two. Hence why SF are performing well in the polls. FG/FF/Lab have lost the trust of the people, and SF are capitalising on that lack of trust in the traditional parties. But ironically enough SF, for so long out in the political wilderness and decried as terrorists and far left loonies are now becoming part of that very establishment that mocked and ostracised them.

Nodin

Heard Reilly on the radio earlier. Clear emphatic no on coalition with SF, got a bit evasive with regard to FF.

Ren2k7

Nodin wrote: »

Heard Reilly on the radio earlier. Clear emphatic no on coalition with SF, got a bit evasive with regard to FF.

It's funny hearing all this pre election bargaining going on. It's all a load of rubbish, everything will be on the table after the election, you can be guaranteed of that.

Iwasfrozen

Ren2k7 wrote: »

It's funny hearing all this pre election bargaining going on. It's all a load of rubbish, everything will be on the table after the election, you can be guaranteed of that.

If FG jump into bed with SF I will never vote FG again, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

ezra_pound

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If FG jump into bed with SF I will never vote FG again, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Yes. I agree with this.

I find it hard to countenance that they would actually do this, though.

Maybe they're trying to remind the electorate that sf probably won't be as radical as they claim if they actually had the option of destroying this country.

By implying that a coalition of the two is in any way conceivable they're underlying the fact that sf in power and sf in opposition are two very different realities.

Baggy Trousers

Nodin wrote: »

Heard Reilly on the radio earlier. Clear emphatic no on coalition with SF, got a bit evasive with regard to FF.

Enda said no to FF. Could come back to haunt him even though it would be a disgraceful move in my opinion though nothing shocks me anymore.

Ren2k7

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If FG jump into bed with SF I will never vote FG again, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I'm sure the feeling among SF voters is mutual.

Quin_Dub

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If FG jump into bed with SF I will never vote FG again, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I'm sure the feeling among SF voters is mutual.

The only thing that SF have ruled out so far is that they have said they will not go into to Government as the junior partner...

If they hold to that , then they will not be in government as they will not be the largest party , by some margin...

Godge

Ren2k7 wrote: »

It's funny hearing all this pre election bargaining going on. It's all a load of rubbish, everything will be on the table after the election, you can be guaranteed of that.

I don't think so.

In all probability, there will be a FG-led government after the next election. Hopefully if will be FG/Labour/Green but I doubt the Greens will get enough (any?) to be in the reckoning. That will mean FG/Labour/Others with the Ross or the Lucinda grouping providing the others.

The only realistic alternative government is a SF-led coalition with FF. That requires two things, first SF is the larger party of the two. Despite the poll figures, that may not happen because of transfer toxicity and getting the vote out. Second, FF would have to agree to go in with SF. If that combination is a possibility, then FF will also have a choice to go in with FG.

Zubeneschamali

Godge wrote: »

That will mean FG/Labour/Others with the Ross or the Lucinda grouping providing the others.

Lucinda's gang are FG, just with even less abortion. If it is still Enda in charge, he won't like it, but he'll sign them up.

If it is someone else, Lucinda will be back in the party.

Rightwing

Listening to Noonan on Saturday, FG/LAB/Inds would seem to be their preferred choice.

Quin_Dub

Rightwing wrote: »

Listening to Noonan on Saturday, FG/LAB/Inds would seem to be their preferred choice.

Think it's the most obvious pathway..

FG/LAB landing somewhere mid/high 60's needing another 8-10 seats , but maybe only getting 6-7 but that will likely be enough for minority Government..The other side will not be able to get themselves together to mount a valid opposition proposal..

Baggy Trousers

Rightwing wrote: »

Listening to Noonan on Saturday, FG/LAB/Inds would seem to be their preferred choice.

I think you might be right. It will never last 5 years though.

Godge

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I think you might be right. It will never last 5 years though.

Are you telling me that Shane Ross will be prepared to walk away from the big car and the big job and the sense of self-importance being finally justified?

Ren2k7

Godge wrote: »

I don't think so.

In all probability, there will be a FG-led government after the next election. Hopefully if will be FG/Labour/Green but I doubt the Greens will get enough (any?) to be in the reckoning. That will mean FG/Labour/Others with the Ross or the Lucinda grouping providing the others.

The only realistic alternative government is a SF-led coalition with FF. That requires two things, first SF is the larger party of the two. Despite the poll figures, that may not happen because of transfer toxicity and getting the vote out. Second, FF would have to agree to go in with SF. If that combination is a possibility, then FF will also have a choice to go in with FG.

Their wouldn't be the numbers for a SF/FF coalition, even if the two agreed to go into government together. And given the toxic stench that still emanates from the FFers it's unlikely the SF rank and file would agree to such a move. On a good day SF will be lucky to hit the mid 30's and I suspect the party may have already peaked in the polls at this stage. If FF manage their vote strategy a bit better in 2016 they could probably increase their seat numbers despite being roughly the same in the polls as their FPV in 2011.

Though conceivably you could see a SF/FF/Lab coalition but that's a very big if. My money is on a FG/Lab government with some sort of Gregory type deals with a handful of Indos and/or maybe some sort of pact with the Lucinda rebels post election to get them a slim majority. Whatever the result the Indos will be key to forming the next government and I fear we may see a return to pork barrel gombeenism that typified the Bertie years and his sucking up to Healy Rae and Lowry, amongst others. Such is Ireland.

Ren2k7

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Think it's the most obvious pathway..

FG/LAB landing somewhere mid/high 60's needing another 8-10 seats , but maybe only getting 6-7 but that will likely be enough for minority Government..The other side will not be able to get themselves together to mount a valid opposition proposal..

A FG led minority govt could be viable, especially if Martin agreed to some sort of Tallaght Strategy of their own with Kenny and backed him on a case by case basis.

Baggy Trousers

Godge wrote: »

Are you telling me that Shane Ross will be prepared to walk away from the big car and the big job and the sense of self-importance being finally justified?

I wouldn't even trust Labour in a 2nd term. They will get such a thrashing in 2016 (34 to 14 perhaps) that they will go into government in complete shock. The "grass roots" wont allow them to deviate from their promises and they will pick any significant issue to pull out of govt in an attempt to regain some honour/credibility.

Ren2k7

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I wouldn't even trust Labour in a 2nd term. They will get such a thrashing in 2016 (34 to 14 perhaps) that they will go into government in complete shock. The "grass roots" wont allow them to deviate from their promises and they will pick any significant issue to pull out of govt in an attempt to regain some honour/credibility.

Labour would be secretly delighted even with 14. I wouldn't be surprised if party chiefs are preparing themselves for a parliamentary party in the single digits after the next election.

Godge

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I wouldn't even trust Labour in a 2nd term. They will get such a thrashing in 2016 (34 to 14 perhaps) that they will go into government in complete shock. The "grass roots" wont allow them to deviate from their promises and they will pick any significant issue to pull out of govt in an attempt to regain some honour/credibility.

They will need to get past the local elections to get fresh new candidates for a general election. That would give the government 3 to 3 and a half years.

Baggy Trousers

Godge wrote: »

They will need to get past the local elections to get fresh new candidates for a general election. That would give the government 3 to 3 and a half years.

No they will have a lot of disgruntled ex-TDs and ex-Councillors that can fill that gap. Many Labour TDs were first timers and will not appreciate only one term.

I actually think we will have 2 General Elections in 2016.

LuckyLloyd

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I'm sure the feeling among SF voters is mutual.

To be more accurate, I'm sure supporters from both sides will express mutual statements to the effect that they would never countenance voting the same way again if a deal was done but it's nonsense of the 'I'd be on the first plane out of the country if SF got in' degree.

FG are a party that believe in being in power. If they have to get into bed with SF to ensure that I'm sure they'll find a mealy mouthed explanation when the time comes. FF and Labour will prove to be no different in that regard.

And as far as that goes, the FG 'hardliners' will be there because voting for FG is a generational family heirloom type thing; and those that would turn their attentions to FF in such a scenario will go back when the time comes. Lots of grandstanding nonsense that means nothing.

Dyr

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Labour would be secretly delighted even with 14. I wouldn't be surprised if party chiefs are preparing themselves for a parliamentary party in the single digits after the next election.

You can't see where they're going to get TD's now, they're often dependent on transfers from candidates who will now finish above them in the next election

Maybe Lynch, Howlin, Penrose, Sherlock, Stagg, Kelly ( Though he must be in his 70's now)

Ren2k7

Bambi wrote: »

You can't see where they're going to get TD's now, they're often dependent on transfers from candidates who will now finish above them in the next election

Maybe Lynch, Howlin, Penrose, Sherlock, Stagg, Kelly ( Though he must be in his 70's now)

I saw one poll analysis which suggested Labour are one course to return something like 4 TD's, which of course would be an absolute catastrophe for the party. And those returned more so because of name recognition than anything else. Even iMoan looks set to struggle in her own constituency.

Dyr

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I saw one poll analysis which suggested Labour are one course to return something like 4 TD's, which of course would be an absolute catastrophe for the party. And those returned more so because of name recognition than anything else. Even iMoan looks set to struggle in her own constituency.

Penrose and Howlin are safe, thats it, as far as dead certs go, I think


Burtons never really had a safe seat, she may be scrapping with Leo for a place the last chopper out of dublin west, which will be a hugely satisfying spectacle

LuckyLloyd

Bambi wrote: »

Burtons never really had a safe seat, she may be scrapping with Leo for a place the last chopper out of dublin west, which will be a hugely satisfying spectacle

That I'd pay to see!!

alaimacerc

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If FG jump into bed with SF I will never vote FG again, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I'm sure the feeling among SF voters is mutual.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Their wouldn't be the numbers for a SF/FF coalition, even if the two agreed to go into government together. And given the toxic stench that still emanates from the FFers it's unlikely the SF rank and file would agree to such a move.

I'd be surer about IWF's statement than Ren's much more sweeping ones. But obviously there are some SF supporters who'd be outraged with any deal with either of the centre-right parties. And there's very clearly also some who'd be selectively outraged about a deal with FG, but who're positively rubbing their hands at the idea of a "pan-Republican" government. Civil war politics isn't dead -- though it's been smelling funny for quite a while now.

Though conceivably you could see a SF/FF/Lab coalition but that's a very big if.

It is, but it's pretty much the only scenario beyond the "vote SF, you've always wanted to be the largest opposition party so you can hear the sound of Gerry Adam's voice more!" one.

Whatever the result the Indos will be key to forming the next government and I fear we may see a return to pork barrel gombeenism that typified the Bertie years and his sucking up to Healy Rae and Lowry, amongst others. Such is Ireland.

Such will be the responsibility of parties taking a sniffy "never go into coalition with that lot" attitude if it does, ultimately. The protestations of SF ("everyone else is toxic, not us!") being the leading example.

alaimacerc

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And as far as that goes, the FG 'hardliners' will be there because voting for FG is a generational family heirloom type thing; and those that would turn their attentions to FF in such a scenario will go back when the time comes. Lots of grandstanding nonsense that means nothing.

I'm not sure that's very internally consistent logic. If there's a generational legacy of voting for -- and being elected to! -- the civil war parties, and it's something to be treasured as an "heirloom" in the bizarre manner you suggest, surely a FG/FF coalition would be to negate the very possibility for "passing it down" to the next generation?

LuckyLloyd

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm not sure that's very internally consistent logic. If there's a generational legacy of voting for -- and being elected to! -- the civil war parties, and it's something to be treasured as an "heirloom" in the bizarre manner you suggest, surely a FG/FF coalition would be to negate the very possibility for "passing it down" to the next generation?

Is the suggestion that both parties have generational cores of support bizarre?

FG and FF could have a coalition without joining together to create a singular party (though that would make a ton of sense at this point as there is no worthwhile difference between their makeup or outlook).

I may have misunderstood your last sentence as 'surely a FG / FF coalition would be to negate' is a little unclear.

alaimacerc

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Is the suggestion that both parties have generational cores of support bizarre?

No, not at all, that part is beyond dispute. Just the idea of it being an "heirloom", which is to impute a positive value to it, rather than a more sober assessment that it's an utter blight on the body politic.

FG and FF could have a coalition without joining together to create a singular party (though that would make a ton of sense at this point as there is no worthwhile difference between their makeup or outlook).

I may have misunderstood your last sentence as 'surely a FG / FF coalition would be to negate' is a little unclear.

The two being in coalition is negate the premise of a meaningful distinction between the two. "Vote for us, rather than the other lot with essentially identical policies that we're nonetheless fundamentally opposed, so we can go into coalition with them" utterly undermines their respective rationales to exist. As poor as those already are.

LuckyLloyd

alaimacerc wrote: »

No, not at all, that part is beyond dispute. Just the idea of it being an "heirloom", which is to impute a positive value to it, rather than a more sober assessment that it's an utter blight on the body politic.



The two being in coalition is negate the premise of a meaningful distinction between the two. "Vote for us, rather than the other lot with essentially identical policies that we're nonetheless fundamentally opposed, so we can go into coalition with them" utterly undermines their respective rationales to exist. As poor as those already are.

I think we fundamentally agree here!

I think they'd be willing to do just that if the alternative was a SF led government. It's a big part of why SF gaining ground could be a momentous positive for politics in the State. FG and FF joining together could really open up the space for real political debate and ultimately real political reform.

alaimacerc

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I think they'd be willing to do just that if the alternative was a SF led government. It's a big part of why SF gaining ground could be a momentous positive for politics in the State. FG and FF joining together could really open up the space for real political debate and ultimately real political reform.

You're essentially saying, then, that they should do this because it'd be bad for them, and good for you/SF. Which is somewhat a self-negating argument. Which isn't to rule out the possibility of them doing it anyway, for their own reasons. Like bums on ministerial seats.

The prospect of a "SF-led" government is hardly a scary prospect for the CW parties, for all the rhetoric about this. It would need one of them to be the "SF followers" in question, after all. Presumptively FF, on the basis of them being a similar shade of green for National Question mood music, and likely to be the smaller of the two next election. So in degrees of freedom terms, the decision is really more acutely one for FF. Would they look to support a FG in government, or SF? Alienate the civil war base of their party, or the economic and social conservative one? Or just sitzkreig in opposition until they get a set of choices they like better?

LuckyLloyd

alaimacerc wrote: »

You're essentially saying, then, that they should do this because it'd be bad for them, and good for you/SF. Which is somewhat a self-negating argument. Which isn't to rule out the possibility of them doing it anyway, for their own reasons. Like bums on ministerial seats.

The prospect of a "SF-led" government is hardly a scary prospect for the CW parties, for all the rhetoric about this. It would need one of them to be the "SF followers" in question, after all. Presumptively FF, on the basis of them being a similar shade of green for National Question mood music, and likely to be the smaller of the two next election. So in degrees of freedom terms, the decision is really more acutely one for FF. Would they look to support a FG in government, or SF? Alienate the civil war base of their party, or the economic and social conservative one? Or just sitzkreig in opposition until they get a set of choices they like better?

The next election is not the last election that SF contest however. We face a prospect of Labour being obliterated and SF being an even louder opposition participant with ~30 seats. There's also the possibility of a minority FG led government being formed which doesn't last long allowing SF to maintain momentum and gain more ground.

To put it more accurately, it seems we agree on the fact of FG and FF being leopards that argue over who has more spots being a negative for politics in this nation; and disagree on the percentage chances of them banding together to be in power if the numbers make sense.

We'll see how it pans out anyway.

alaimacerc

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The next election is not the last election that SF contest however. We face a prospect of Labour being obliterated and SF being an even louder opposition participant with ~30 seats. There's also the possibility of a minority FG led government being formed which doesn't last long allowing SF to maintain momentum and gain more ground.

I'm not sure that latter scenario works to SF's advantage, though. Might be the proverbial bucket of cold water over a drunk electorate's head.

For the next several elections at least, SF are going to have to face the reality that the majority of the country doesn't support them, or anyone they've said they're willing to work with in government. Either that has to change, or SF's "our way or the highway" inevitably must.

To put it more accurately, it seems we agree on the fact of FG and FF being leopards that argue over who has more spots being a negative for politics in this nation; and disagree on the percentage chances of them banding together to be in power if the numbers make sense.

Well, in the long run it seems almost certain. Or that FF and SF will merge, or that FF will split on those lines, to the same essential result. One main conservative party, and one main "notionally left with Irish characteristics" such. But in the long run we're all dead. It'd be nice to think we could have parties with ideologically clear choices, with less in the way of either CW baggage or SF's own ample supply. But reality is altogether messier.

Godge

Bambi wrote: »

Penrose and Howlin are safe, thats it, as far as dead certs go, I think


Burtons never really had a safe seat, she may be scrapping with Leo for a place the last chopper out of dublin west, which will be a hugely satisfying spectacle

There are two Castleknock seats in Dublin West and two Mulhuddart seats.

Varadkar is a cert for one of the Castleknock seats and Coppinger is a cert for one of the Mulhuddart seats.

After that, it is way too early to guess, but Donnelly must be in with a strong chance for the second Mulhuddart seat.

alaimacerc

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Enda said no to FF. Could come back to haunt him even though it would be a disgraceful move in my opinion though nothing shocks me anymore.

If FG and FF do go into coalition, it would "raise the whole tone" if at least one leader were to resign as part of the groundwork. Pop over to the other party HQ. Take a shufti. Don't come back.

Both at the same time would be little enough harm.

alaimacerc

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Yeah, we seem to have reached peak FF/FG and are now desperately looking for someone else to replace the two. Hence why SF are performing well in the polls.

No, I think hence why there's an independent "bubble" in the opinion polls at present. While Ross and Creighton continue to tout for business, conservative voters have not yet exhausted every possible avenue of voting for the same thing, and expecting a different result!

There's an element of FF support that has bled off to SF, but it's hardly the same people that have been "floating" between FF and FG. Or if it is, their political beliefs are so "fluid" as to challenge characterisation of them as "beliefs" in any meaningful sense at all. Plus lots of ex-Lab support, obviously.

alaimacerc

conorh91 wrote: »

To say or imply that FG are currently polling in, or at any margin 3% on either side of 24% implies that there is an equal chance of FG securing 24% as 27%, simply because it is within their margin of error.

I must have missed this memo that "anywhere" now means "anywhere with equally likelihood". What's the new word for "anywhere", then? "anywhere classic"?

Dyr

Godge wrote: »

There are two Castleknock seats in Dublin West and two Mulhuddart seats.

Varadkar is a cert for one of the Castleknock seats and Coppinger is a cert for one of the Mulhuddart seats.

After that, it is way too early to guess, but Donnelly must be in with a strong chance for the second Mulhuddart seat.

You'd imagine so, but FG's performance in the by election would make you wonder, given the volatility of the dublin voter. Granted they ran a complete spanner then

Godge

Bambi wrote: »

You'd imagine so, but FG's performance in the by election would make you wonder, given the volatility of the dublin voter. Granted they ran a complete spanner then

If you look at the local elections though, FG got 19.47% in the Castleknock ward and 13.02% in the Mulhuddart ward. Castleknock gets more voters out than Mulhuddart meaning the average is 17-18%. With the boost in the polls FG have had since, Varadkar is safe unless there is a backlash because of the "gay" aspect. If he does well enough on the first count and has no running mate, his surplus may keep Joan ahead of the pack for the last seat.