So Michael D IS running again!

Beechwoodspark

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Who would be second in your view and what sort of % will they get?
Interesting point made by one interviewer- no milenials out there will know Gallagher as he’s been off TV for years now so his 500k votes he got last time will surely drop considerably

I think at this stage I would say Freeman might get second. Then Gallagher or Ni Riada, Duffy and Casey in that order.

Obviously lot of time between now and voting day so things can change.

FrancieBrady

Lack lustre boring campaigns so far.
Somebody is going to have to put a knife in or Higgins will romp home. Who will it be?

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Lack lustre boring campaigns so far.
Somebody is going to have to put a knife in or Higgins will romp home. Who will it be?

Michael D and Ni Riada seem to have a bit of mutual respect due to the mutual "grá na gaeilge" so unlikely to see SF go on the attack directly.

Equally, I don't see Duffy, Freeman or Gallagher risking damaging themselves by directly attacking MDH - they'll either let proxies do it (*cough* Casey *cough*), or else have some "non-supporters" do the dirty work.

Some FF councillors or back-benchers might also try something (similar to what they were trying with the PAC a few weeks back) to try help Gallagher.

Zubeneschamali

blackwhite wrote: »

Michael D and Ni Riada seem to have a bit of mutual respect due to the mutual "grá na gaeilge" so unlikely to see SF go on the attack directly.

SF are not in it to win it, they know they have no chance unless Higgins actually dies before polling day. They are in it to raise the profile of the party and establish themselves as the real opposition.

So expect Ní Ríada to be respectful towards Higgins and try to position herself below Higgins on the "real candidate" ballot, punching exclusively down at the dragon candidates.

I expect she will say that Freeman deserves respect for her work on mental health and then bitch about her as gaeilge.

realdanbreen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Lack lustre boring campaigns so far.
Somebody is going to have to put a knife in or Higgins will romp home. Who will it be?

Gallagher has had 7 years to ferment in the fact that he was basicly set up and robbed last time out. Not sure what he has dug up on the incumbent but the SF lady better have cleaned out any skeletons that might have been in her cupboard!

Rhineshark

marieholmfan wrote: »

wrt Dublin barriers and policing on day Queen of England visited

Is it comparable to


https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mcaleese-protestant-children-taught-to-hate-catholics-186673.html

No, unless again, you can point me to the mass graves as a result of the queens visit.

FrancieBrady

realdanbreen wrote: »

Gallagher has had 7 years to ferment in the fact that he was basicly set up and robbed last time out. Not sure what he has dug up on the incumbent but the SF lady better have cleaned out any skeletons that might have been in her cupboard!

He wasn't set up or robbed. A question about him was asked (in an underhand way because our selective media wouldn't ask it ) but he ruined his own chance when he inadequately answered it and imo he still has to adequately answer it.

schemingbohemia

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

SF are not in it to win it, they know they have no chance unless Higgins actually dies before polling day. They are in it to raise the profile of the party and establish themselves as the real opposition.

So expect Ní Ríada to be respectful towards Higgins and try to position herself below Higgins on the "real candidate" ballot, punching exclusively down at the dragon candidates.

I expect she will say that Freeman deserves respect for her work on mental health and then bitch about her as gaeilge.

I thought that too so am very surprised that there is no SF logo or name on the Ní Ríada posters anywhere.

realdanbreen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He wasn't set up or robbed. A question about him was asked (in an underhand way because our selective media wouldn't ask it ) but he ruined his own chance when he inadequately answered it and imo he still has to adequately answer it.

I take it that you didn't see that debate then Francie and also that you were not aware that Gallagher was way ahead in the polls at the time, all but home and hosed.

FrancieBrady

realdanbreen wrote: »

I take it that you didn't see that debate then Francie and also that you were not aware that Gallagher was way ahead in the polls at the time, all but home and hosed.

I seen it and have watched it many times since. I still think it was a justified way to reveal a bogus candidate who was trying to hide his past.

He really revealed himself once the catalyst was deployed and I will be forever grateful to whoever it was that did that.

realdanbreen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I seen it and have watched it many times since. I still think it was a justified way to reveal a bogus candidate who was trying to hide his past.

He really revealed himself once the catalyst was deployed and I will be forever grateful to whoever it was that did that.

But in fairness you also believe that Gerry Adams was never in the IRA so that kind of puts what you think in perspective. And you watched that debate 'many times since' !

FrancieBrady

realdanbreen wrote: »

But in fairness you also believe that Gerry Adams was never in the IRA so that kind of puts what you think in perspective. And you watched that debate 'many times since' !

I don't know if GA was in the IRA or not and neither do I care tbh.

What that has to do with Gallagher self revealing his past eludes me tbf.

pixelburp

The nature of the question was shady and real amateur-hour stuff from RTÉ, but the reality is Gallagher handled the question like a man either out of his depth, or with something to hide. He ballsed it up completely, having effectively coasted in the polls on being the slightly bland, non party-affiliated candidate with a bit of celebrity to add some percentage points. He outed himself, albeit via aforementioned bad journalism.

Sean Gallagher only has Sean Gallagher to blame, for being found out as a FF proxy candidate / bagman. Between that and his apparent business model of getting government grants for GAA clubs leads me to believe he'd just be the President of Strokes were he to be elected.

realdanbreen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't know if GA was in the IRA or not and neither do I care tbh.

So just to be clear, does that mean that you don't believe Adams when he says he was never in the IRA? BTW a simple yes or no answer is all that's needed from you.

FrancieBrady

realdanbreen wrote: »

So just to be clear, does that mean that you don't believe Adams when he says he was never in the IRA? BTW a simple yes or no answer is all that's needed from you.

I don't know whether he was or not nor do I care.

What is difficult about that answer for you? And please tell us all why you are deflecting to this when Gallagher is in the spotlight?

realdanbreen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't know whether he was or not nor do I care.

What is difficult about that answer for you? And please tell us all why you are deflecting to this when Gallagher is in the spotlight?

It's to establish where you are coming from. I'll try one more time. Gerry Adams says he was never in the IRA, do you believe him yes or no?

FrancieBrady

realdanbreen wrote: »

It's to establish where you are coming from. I'll try one more time. Gerry Adams says he was never in the IRA, do you believe him yes or no?

Already answered and irrelevant.

Here is where I am coming from in this conversation:

He wasn't set up or robbed. A question about him was asked (in an underhand way because our selective media wouldn't ask it ) but he ruined his own chance when he inadequately answered it and imo he still has to adequately answer it.

expectationlost

an issue with presidential elections is media only start digging till very late or too late

Zubeneschamali

realdanbreen wrote: »

I take it that you didn't see that debate then Francie and also that you were not aware that Gallagher was way ahead in the polls at the time, all but home and hosed.

I did see it, and the tweet was neither here nor there. McGuinness pointed out that Gallagher was in FF up to his neck and lying about it. This was clearly true and bad news for Gallagher since FF were about as popular as neurosyphilis at the time.

But what did the real damage to Gallagher was this moment where, in the context of Cowen's FF and corruption, he said the word "envelope". Listen to the audience:

Loafing Oaf

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But what did the real damage to Gallagher was this moment where, in the context of Cowen's FF and corruption, he said the word "envelope". Listen to the audience:

Talk about shooting yourself in both feet.:p Surprised he didn't add, "And the envelope may well have been brown."

expectationlost

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I did see it, and the tweet was neither here nor there. McGuinness pointed out that Gallagher was in FF up to his neck and lying about it. This was clearly true and bad news for Gallagher since FF were about as popular as neurosyphilis at the time.

But what did the real damage to Gallagher was this moment where, in the context of Cowen's FF and corruption, he said the word "envelope". Listen to the audience:

its not just a question of whether he did or did not physically collect the donation he solicited from Hugh Morgan, but that if he did he would not look in the envelope to see if the donations was only up to the limit and no more and if were or weren't it would have nothing to do with him.

realdanbreen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Already answered and irrelevant.

It's this refusal to answer direct questions and general playing with words that ensures SF will never appeal to a larger electorate than it already has.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I seen it and have watched it many times since. I still think it was a justified way to reveal a bogus candidate who was trying to hide his past.

He really revealed himself once the catalyst was deployed and I will be forever grateful to whoever it was that did that.

Seriously, you have sat down and watched the full Presidential debates in 2011 many times since 2011?

Or do you just mean a 60-second out of context clip?

Zubeneschamali

blanch152 wrote: »

Seriously, you have sat down and watched the full Presidential debates in 2011 many times since 2011?

Or do you just mean a 60-second out of context clip?

If you watch the context, McGuinness has been leaning hard on the fact that Cowen's government was rotten and corrupt and that Gallagher was in it up to his neck, personally soliciting and collecting 5000 donations from folks for dinner and a photo with Cowen.

The tweet is just a pebble, Gallagher was buried under the avalanche it set off.

James Brown

realdanbreen wrote: »

Gallagher has had 7 years to ferment in the fact that he was basicly set up and robbed last time out. Not sure what he has dug up on the incumbent but the SF lady better have cleaned out any skeletons that might have been in her cupboard!

People are becoming very bored with the SF/IRA stories from before many of them were born.
Likely we'll see Gallagher take it to the gutter in a tantrum.

realdanbreen

Matt Barrett wrote: »

People are becoming very bored with the SF/IRA stories from before many of them were born.
Likely we'll see Gallagher take it to the gutter in a tantrum.

You might like to think people are bored or have forgotten but thankfully the majority of decent people in this country have not.

FrancieBrady

realdanbreen wrote: »

It's this refusal to answer direct questions and general playing with words that ensures SF will never appeal to a larger electorate than it already has.

How is 'I don't know if he was or not and I don't care either', not a 'direct' answer to your question?
If I 'knew' either way I would tell you.

Claiming something without evidence to back it up does not make it true or a liar out of somebody.

You can choose to believe them, disbelieve them or decide that you 'don't know'.

It's mad interesting and revealing that you and others need to deflect to this stuff whenever a suspected FF bagman comes under scrutiny though.

Zubeneschamali

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's mad interesting and revealing that you and others need to deflect to this stuff whenever a suspected FF bagman comes under scrutiny though.

"I may well have delivered the photograph if he gave me an envelope".

If he had never collected envelopes, he would not have admitted that he might have collected this one, he would have said "I never collected any cheques or envelopes".

He is an admitted bagman, not suspected.

Thammer

Higgins will want as little debate as possible and stick to photo ops

Let the dragons beat each to death with their nonsense

The communist/Castro angle will probably come into play

FrancieBrady

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

"I may well have delivered the photograph if he gave me an envelope".

If he had never collected envelopes, he would not have admitted that he might have collected this one, he would have said "I never collected any cheques or envelopes".

He is an admitted bagman, not suspected.

True - he self admitted and his campaign went down the toilet. We still need to know how deep his involvement in FF was and is.