So Michael D IS running again!

Lizsalander

Does SG get all his election expenses free if he runs?

Zubeneschamali

Larbre34 wrote: »

Why would you take the risk of a vote transferring to someone you abhor?

Your lower preferences cannot help beat someone higher on your list (except in very rare circumstances the very last preference which you can leave blank).

If you've voted Buddha, Jesus, and Ghandhi 1, 2 and 3, your 4 and 5 for Stalin and Hitler simply means IF one of them is getting in, you prefer Stalin to Hitler (assuming Satan himself is the last candidate that you leave off).

Zubeneschamali

Lizsalander wrote: »

Does SG get all his election expenses free if he runs?

No, he needs to score above a quarter quota to claim expenses: 12.5% of the vote.

In 2011, Higgins, McGuinness and Gallagher got 200K expenses, maybe 2/3 of what they spent.

Norris, Mitchell, Dana and Davis got zip, and spent maybe 1.3 million between them. Mitchell somehow blew half a million of FGs money, more than anyone else, for a dismal 6.5% of the vote.

Lizsalander

evolving_doors wrote: »

I reckon these randomers are throwing their hat in the ring in the chance that some scandal or other is revealed about Michael D.

Maybe the Dragons know something about the Hobbit?

Larbre34

dulpit wrote: »

If you don't go to the end your vote may eventually not be used. If you go to the end then you can at least keep it in circulation away from your least favourite as long as possible.

It will be used until the end of your preferences (unless all are eliminated) if you give your least favourite your last preference, you risk them getting the benefit of it? The only way to keep it away from them permanently is to give them no preference at all. I would have thought that was obvious? Xx

Loafing Oaf

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Mitchell somehow blew half a million of FGs money, more than anyone else, for a dismal 6.5% of the vote.

Wow, no wonder they were so keen to sit this one out.:eek:

Zubeneschamali

Larbre34 wrote: »

if you give your least favourite your last preference, you risk them getting the benefit of it?

Feel free to leave that one person off the ballot - there is a very unlikely scenario where it might help that candidate. But always go all the way down until the last place, leaving off only that one least favourite candidate.

The unlikely scenario is where the vote comes down to your last two choices: Hitler or Satan, your vote transfers to Hitler, and by a vanishingly unlikely circumstance, the result is an exact draw between Hitler and Satan. To break the tie, the Returning Officer may look at the next preferences.

If you put Satan last, you help him. If you left him off completely, you don't.

In practice, this is extremely unlikely to ever happen, but for the sake of completeness, it means the most thorough way to use your vote is vote all the way down the card but leave the very last spot blank instead of giving it the last number.

blanch152

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Feel free to leave that one person off the ballot - there is a very unlikely scenario where it might help that candidate. But always go all the way down until the last place, leaving off only that one least favourite candidate.

The unlikely scenario is where the vote comes down to your last two choices: Hitler or Satan, your vote transfers to Hitler, and by a vanishingly unlikely circumstance, the result is an exact draw between Hitler and Satan. To break the tie, the Returning Officer may look at the next preferences.

If you put Satan last, you help him. If you left him off completely, you don't.

In practice, this is extremely unlikely to ever happen, but for the sake of completeness, it means the most thorough way to use your vote is vote all the way down the card but leave the very last spot blank instead of giving it the last number.

I wasn't aware of that little quirk.

Do I leave Ni Riadh off because of the entertainment value of O'Doherty?

Or do I leave O'Doherty off because she would make us a laughing stock?

Difficult choice between the anti-vaxxers.

Zubeneschamali

blanch152 wrote: »

Difficult choice between the anti-vaxxers.

Is the Marilyn impersonator pro or anti vaccination? :P

TCM

Matt Barrett wrote:

He already got caught out telling fibs. He used the council logo on his paraphernalia and when asked said he had permission. Then when called out, said he was only using it as an example and hadn't got permission. Great start.

Matt Barrett wrote:

Gallagher winning would bring the Presidency down to the low levels of Varadkar spin and socks.

Matt Barrett wrote:

He already got caught out telling fibs. He used the council logo on his paraphernalia and when asked said he had permission. Then when called out, said he was only using it as an example and hadn't got permission. Great start.

Matt Barrett wrote:

Gallagher winning would bring the Presidency down to the low levels of Varadkar spin and socks.

True. Kildare Co. Councillor Fiona McLoughlin Healy nailed him on that one.

Lizsalander

One thing about SG he's not a good speaker or a person who can think on his feet so he'll need a good speechwriter.

On the other hand he'll be good at receiving gifts
from foreign dignitaries

Beechwoodspark

I just rewatched the Sean gallagher frontline debate. It’s up on YouTube.

He hasn’t a hope.

FrancieBrady

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Gallagher winning would bring the Presidency down to the low levels of Varadkar spin and socks.

Totally agree, sick of meaningless talk about positivity and energy and loving everyone. Boundless spin and nonsense imo.

Larbre34

Who do we think will or will fail to get nominated?

Sharkey is out of it, as well as the other window lickers. I also think Gallagher is doing Duffy no favours. With the whip in place on Councillor nominations, not many will break ranks overall. I think one of Duffy, Gallagher and Freeman will fail to make the ballot. Whom, I'm not sure.

gandalf

My guess is the final line up will be.

Higgins, SF mystery candidate, Gallagher and Freeman.

Larbre34

gandalf wrote: »

My guess is the final line up will be.

Higgins, SF mystery candidate, Gallagher and Freeman.

Im inclined to agree. Duffy will spit bullets. And that will be funny.

You think potential for an SF other than Ní Riada?

gandalf

Finucane has been mentioned. I'd personally be worried if they run with Ni Riada.

The possibility of an Anti-vaxxer getting into such a high profile position would be very damaging.

James Brown

I think SF might decide not to run. I think Higgins has it and Gallagher will get great self promotion mileage out of it. The lad had his campaign website up months ago. Pretending he was thinking about it was to build suspense. Does any one really care that much? He's hardly a household name.

Larbre34

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think SF might decide not to run. I think Higgins has it and Gallagher will get great self promotion mileage out of it. The lad had his campaign website up months ago. Pretending he was thinking about it was to build suspense. Does any one really care that much? He's hardly a household name.

Its certainly a lot of dosh for SF to shell out on a hiding to nothing, considering we are looking at a GE within another 12-18 months

Beechwoodspark

What is Gallagher’s strategy for dealing with the allegations he admitted to back in 2011?

He’s on a hiding to nothing unless things seriously change

Cork Boy 53

I see there is a controversy brewing about the inauguration date of 11th November which will clash with the centenary of the armistice that ended WW1.Brendan Howlin is among those who have called for the date to be changed.

Loafing Oaf

Gallagher has come in to 4/1 with PP. Seems like the punters see him as the only (semi-) serious challenger...

gandalf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Gallagher has come in to 4/1 with PP. Seems like the punters see him as the only (semi-) serious challenger...

Until SF show their hand he is.

VinLieger

Also get ready for the howls of corruption and rigging if gemma doesnt get nominated

FrancieBrady

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

I see there is a controversy brewing about the inauguration date of 11th November which will clash with the centenary of the armistice that ended WW1.Brendan Howlin is among those who have called for the date to be changed.

Howlin sounded like he was desperate to be relevant tbh.

Cork Boy 53

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Howlin sounded like he was desperate to be relevant tbh.

Maybe so but he still has a valid point IMO.

Loafing Oaf

gandalf wrote: »

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Gallagher has come in to 4/1 with PP. Seems like the punters see him as the only (semi-) serious challenger...

Until SF show their hand he is.

Both prospective candidates in the 20s with pp. unless they come up with a bigger name it doesn’t look like they will be serious contenders

gandalf

VinLieger wrote: »

Also get ready for the howls of corruption and rigging if gemma doesnt get nominated

I'm looking forward to it. It should be a very entertaining Twitter meltdown

FrancieBrady

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

Maybe so but he still has a valid point IMO.

Affairs of State would take precedence. Seems a president elect can attend anyway according to a discussion on RTE this evening.

ligerdub

VinLieger wrote: »

Gemma's latest addition to what the presidency is about

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1034572886248443910

What????

Seems reasonable. I mean it's least it's not over-selling the role like the constitutional zealots/pedants on here get into knots over when it comes to downplaying the power of the role when any candidate tries to put any sort of campaign together.

Go Gemma. Somebody has to take them to task. #I'mWithHer