So Michael D IS running again!

Hitman3000

alaimacerc wrote:

... about the best thing you could manage to actually come up with?

I'm sorry, have you a point?

FrancieBrady

alaimacerc wrote: »

Sounds like a pretty good reason not to. But also a rather inflated figure -- where's it from?



'Tis terrible, so they are, yadda-yadda. Hardly anyone votes for them at all these days!

Their share of the vote has been in decline for a long time.

alaimacerc

I just found this poll: http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-general-election-5-4141349-Jul2018/

Fairly even split between each of the years '18, '19, '20, and '21. Ye'd be mad to call an election on the basis of that as "public demand for it". And you'd get a hiding for it if you did.

seamus

Tell me how wrote: »

Would it have been just these 5? I can't imagine so.

Nah. Fergus Finlay has already said that he would have sought nomination if Michael D hadn't run again.

Most likely each party would have put forward a candidate. Adams or Ni Riadh for SF and Gallagher as an "Independent" for FF.

FG have never been good at candidates, they might have been stupid enough to consider Enda for the job. Actually, looking at the history of the role, a FG candidate has never won an election for President.

The only reason 3 of the current six are running is because county councils wanted to feel relevant. With an actual race being available, the councils probably would have stuck to the party line.

alaimacerc

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I'm sorry, have you a point?

Did you somehow contrive to miss it?

FrancieBrady

alaimacerc wrote: »

I just found this poll: http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-general-election-5-4141349-Jul2018/

Fairly even split between each of the years '18, '19, '20, and '21. Ye'd be mad to call an election on the basis of that as "public demand for it". And you'd get a hiding for it if you did.

For someone who attempts to be so eloquently dismissive you don't seem to up to date or able to use Google. Can't post links on the phone but try the latest IT poll.

Hitman3000

alaimacerc wrote:

Did you somehow contrive to miss it?

Well done answering a question with a question. Although all you have done is answer or respond in a sneering condescending manner to every poster with a different opinion to you. Nothing more to say other than if Casey hadn't rattled cages you and a few like you would not be here posting in the manner which you are. I wouldn't be responding to you further. Bye bye, ;-)

Goldengirl

This post has been deleted.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

For someone who attempts to be so eloquently dismissive you don't seem to up to date or able to use Google. Can't post links on the phone but try the latest IT poll.

The poll had a higher percentage who didn’t want an election (46%), but it appears you just read the headline and missed the actual details.

Some serious editorial spin from the IT to focus on the option that had the smaller level of support.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-times-ipsos-mrbi-poll-44-in-favour-of-general-election-1.3664554

Sycamore Tree

I actually think Gallagher might poll last now. He kinda looks like a sore loser and did nothing in the past 7 years to warrant support. I think the result will hit him hard.

Here is my prediction

1. Michael D by a landslide
2. Ni Riada
3. Casey
4. Freeman
5. Duffy
6. Gallagher

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

The poll had a higher percentage who didn’t want an election (46%), but it appears you just read the headline and missed the actual details.

Some serious editorial spin from the IT to focus on the option that had the smaller level of support.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-times-ipsos-mrbi-poll-44-in-favour-of-general-election-1.3664554

Was I wrong to say that 45% want an election?
Yes I was, it was 44%.

I didn't say anything about 'higher or majorities'.

By all means dispute my analysis but don't be inventing things I said for the usual defence.

Hotblack Desiato

Jameswhalley wrote: »

Among others the jibe about the 8 years allowed for aUS president to complete their mission.

Comparing the Irish and the US presidencies (as PK did) is entirely stupid.

Also the obvious point that Higgins left little time for serious candidates to contest the election and we're stuck with 3 dragons and SF and ANother.

He said they had 7 years to prepare, and they did. If all of these wonderful would-be candidates out there were afraid to commit against an incumbent, they were just cowards.

AGC

realdanbreen wrote: »

To paraphrase a previous president, WOW! How gracious of the mighty president to invite travellers into the Arus for a garden party no less!.

So you look for them to do things, they do things and you still have an issue.

So best just to ignore you.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Was I wrong to say that 45% want an election?
Yes I was, it was 44%.

I didn't say anything about 'higher or majorities'.

By all means dispute my analysis but don't be inventing things I said for the usual defence.

Your argument is that 44% wanting election means that they shouldn’t be scared to be seen to be the party that caused an election

However 46% not wanting an election is exactly why being blamed for an election would cost them votes.

But please - continue to spin and push your usual agenda. Can’t let any pesky facts gets in the way of that :rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

AGC wrote: »

FF FG labour would have candidates. SF would have a stronger one and I’d expect Casey and Duffy wouldn’t be on the ballot paper

I asked this before. Who in FF, FG or Labour is remotely interested and electable?

I can't see how SF's position would have changed in any way. They committed to running a candidate and didn't decide (or, reveal) who until after MDH nominated himself

There would have been nothing stopping councils putting idiots on the ballot paper, regardless.

AGC

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not sure they would. FG seem marginally more afraid to face the public than FF. They both know what a further decline in their share of the vote means and they no likey doing anthing to hasten it. Their share of the vote has been in steady decline for a while now.

FG as the government party would have to run someone. Would be a serious error if they didn’t

AGC

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes, but, any ideas on names?

Agree Casey and Duffy out. I think the aforementioned Bertie/Enda might have been touted for their respective parties.

Not sure about too many other strong candidates.

Maybe Sean Kelly for FG?

FF had said it wouldn’t be Bertie

AGC

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I asked this before. Who in FF, FG or Labour is remotely interested and electable?

I can't see how SF's position would have changed in any way. They committed to running a candidate and didn't decide (or, reveal) who until after MDH nominated himself

There would have been nothing stopping councils putting idiots on the ballot paper, regardless.

People like O’Cuiv for FF and possibly Enda from FG.

alaimacerc

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I asked this before. Who in FF, FG or Labour is remotely interested and electable?

Ivana Bacik's name was dropped in, last night...

There would have been nothing stopping councils putting idiots on the ballot paper, regardless.

Some degree of party discipline would in theory have made a difference.

Hotblack Desiato

AGC wrote: »

People like O’Cuiv for FF and possibly Enda from FG.

Both unelectable

Fergus Finlay wanted a nomination but Labour don't have the seats to deliver one and are still electorally toxic to a lot of people. Could end up with a lot of awkward questions about salaries and state boards like "quango queen" Mary Davis did.

Tell me how

Sycamore Tree wrote:

Here is my prediction.

1. Michael D by a landslide
2. Ni Riada
3. Casey
4. Freeman
5. Duffy
6. Gallagher

I think; Higgins, Gallagher, Ni Riada, Freeman, Casey and Duffy.

I'll be voting for incumbent as I think he has and will represent the country well. Not a fan of Gallagher (was 7 yrs ago before clear links to FF). Think Ni Riada/Sinn Fein are using this purely as precursor to general election, Freeman will be my #2 as I think she is a good, genuine person. Casey, I'm convinced, is only in the race as a result of some Phileas Fogg type deal with some golf buddies. Duffy is using this to maintain profile which will continue to help his business/training/consultancy.

Hotblack Desiato

Goldengirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What!?!

jay0109

alaimacerc wrote: »

Ivana Bacik's name was dropped in, last night...

:D:D Is it possible she could be given a run to lose another election....she'd be in record territory at that stage surely

Goldengirl

This post has been deleted.

alaimacerc

Sycamore Tree wrote: »

1. Michael D by a landslide
2. Ni Riada
3. Casey
4. Freeman
5. Duffy
6. Gallagher

And the expenses threshold to be where? Riada and Casey to avail of the cash-back offer?

I doubt enough people pay the slightest bit of attention to the debates for it to make that much of a difference. Casey's "I hear you're a Travellerphobe now, Peter. Fair play to you!" will be the only real break-out from that.

Tell me how

alaimacerc wrote:

Ivana Bacik's name was dropped in, last night...

Hasn't she had some unsuccessful runs at Dail Eireann.

That aside, I agree though, that she is a very desirable candidate from the parties perspective.

No skeletons, legal professional, female.

jay0109

Expenses is 12% min share of the vote

Loafing Oaf

alaimacerc wrote: »

Casey's "I hear you're a Travellerphobe now, Peter. Fair play to you!" will be the only real break-out from that.

It's not the immigrants, it's the travellers he's after.:P

never_mind

Late to the game on this thread.. but Michael D was fantastic last night. Gallagher is a bit boring and lacks warmth. If I had a garden full of mickies I wouldn't let anyone but Miggedly have a look over the wall.

Ní Riada - doing it to get re-elected in Cork for MEP.
Casey - lost a bet and went for it
Freeman - bland
Duffy - bland, unintelligent, very bad speaker, need a good shower, **** and shave
Gallagher - bland and bald. Two very bad bs
M D - eloquent, intelligent, understands politics

Couldn't care how much he's on, he's the f'in president, also don't care how much his office spends. It's well worth the Michael Tea Higgins.

SEVEN MORE YEARS!

alaimacerc

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Well done answering a question with a question. Although all you have done is answer or respond in a sneering condescending manner to every poster with a different opinion to you.

Yours wasn't much of a question, let's be fair. Some posts it's pretty hard not to have to stoop a little down to.

Nothing more to say other than if Casey hadn't rattled cages you and a few like you would not be here posting in the manner which you are.

Your theory seems to lack internal consistency. I sneer at everyone, but only respond in that manner because of Casey's blather? If that were the case, surely I'd only have been sneering post-Casey-blather, and more focused on the Casey and Peterfans? (I preferred their earlier stuff. But not by very much.)

I wouldn't be responding to you further. Bye bye, ;-)

Promises, promises!