So...Ok then...How do we talk about it? (Irish Presidential Election Result)

Zubeneschamali

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think he's got a lot more coverage than he was due, and only because of the sensationalist shock value of his ignorance

Absolutely. The Anyone_But_Michael_D crew were looking for someone to back. The Perennial Protest Voters were looking for someone to back. It was all a bit scattered, but then Casey made his remarks, the Establishment condemned him, and both groups had their champion.

But it means nothing in terms of national policy or a new direction for politics, we do not need to talk about it at all.

26000 Elephants

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Absolutely. The Anyone_But_Michael_D crew were looking for someone to back. The Perennial Protest Voters were looking for someone to back. It was all a bit scattered, but then Casey made his remarks, the Establishment condemned him, and both groups had their champion.

But it means nothing in terms of national policy or a new direction for politics, we do not need to talk about it at all.

• Anyone_But_Michael_D crew
• The Perennial Protest Voters
• the Establishment

Are you forgetting anyone?

• Dublin meedja
• Rural gombeens
• Shinners

I'm sure there are a few other imaginary bogeymen you could conjure up.

But please, continue to hand wave away 23.3% of the electorate and see where that will get you.

FrancieBrady

26000 Elephants wrote: »

• Anyone_But_Michael_D crew
• The Perennial Protest Voters
• the Establishment

Are you forgetting anyone?

• Dublin meedja
• Rural gombeens
• Shinners

I'm sure there are a few other imaginary bogeymen you could conjure up.

But please, continue to hand wave away 23.3% of the electorate and see where that will get you.

It's not 23% of the 'electorate', it is 23% of 46% of the electorate actually.

Hugely hugely different figures.

mrbrianj

The next "big" poll will be a general election. We will get people like Peter Casey shouting about travellers, welfare state and so on, but rest assured that the blood and guts of a general election battle will cut through the empty rhetoric BS. The gloves will come off and it wont be like the circus of the presidential election.

People may like a "straight" talkers for presidential elections, but GEs are party politics, parish pumps and fixed pot holes - and what money goes in your pockets.

James Brown

mrbrianj wrote: »

The next "big" poll will be a general election. We will get people like Peter Casey shouting about travellers, welfare state and so on, but rest assured that the blood and guts of a general election battle will cut through the empty rhetoric BS. The gloves will come off and it wont be like the circus of the presidential election.

People may like a "straight" talkers for presidential elections, but GEs are party politics, parish pumps and fixed pot holes - and what money goes in your pockets.

I don't believe the idea of Presidential candidates being anything more than an ambassador has come up before. Straight talking never came into it IMO.
Casey was merely looking for attention. We'll have politicians doing the very same. I'm looking forward to Fine Gael trying to keep a straight face while slagging off their partners in policy Fianna Fail.

mrbrianj

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I don't believe the idea of Presidential candidates being anything more than an ambassador has come up before. Straight talking never came into it IMO.
Casey was merely looking for attention. We'll have politicians doing the very same. I'm looking forward to Fine Gael trying to keep a straight face while slagging off their partners in policy Fianna Fail.

That's the biggest circle for both FF and FG to square! Both are now sharing the same ground, so it its hard to kick down there others principles leaving only track record - and nobody has a good track record. But they'll be like dogs on everybody else's grand plans.

Loafing Oaf

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'm looking forward to Fine Gael trying to keep a straight face while slagging off their partners in policy Fianna Fail.

I don't think FG will need to go too hard on this as I'd imagine they'll go into the election openly accepting their willingness to cut another deal with FF if circumstances demand.

FF on the other hand will be desperately trying to keep voters' minds off the prospect of another deal with FG. But the problem with that approach is it raises the possibility of an FF-SF coalition as, realistically, what other options will FF have?

James Brown

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I don't think FG will need to go too hard on this as I'd imagine they'll go into the election openly accepting their willingness to cut another deal with FF if circumstances demand.

FF on the other hand will be desperately trying to keep voters' minds off the prospect of another deal with FG. But the problem with that approach is it raises the possibility of an FF-SF coalition as, realistically, what other options will FF have?

They'll certainly need play the game of being in competition, if only a family rivalry. Otherwise they won't know who's in the driving seat. I doubt either will be raising Travelers as an issue.

26000 Elephants

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's not 23% of the 'electorate', it is 23% of 46% of the electorate actually.

Hugely hugely different figures.

Believe that all you want, if it makes you feel happier.
In reality, that figure will safely extrapolate to any higher turnout you care to imagine.

The notion that the people who could not ( or would not) vote would vote substantially different from those who do is flawed. Anyway, at any level, the views of those who actually vote are what matter.

Tell me how

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Believe that all you want, if it makes you feel happier.
In reality, that figure will safely extrapolate to any higher turnout you care to imagine.

The notion that the people who could not ( or would not) vote would vote substantially different from those who do is flawed. Anyway, at any level, the views of those who actually vote are what matter.

Can't see it. He hasn't a clue about policy/strategy.

James Brown

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Believe that all you want, if it makes you feel happier.
In reality, that figure will safely extrapolate to any higher turnout you care to imagine.

The notion that the people who could not ( or would not) vote would vote substantially different from those who do is flawed. Anyway, at any level, the views of those who actually vote are what matter.

You don't know that. I would suggest anyone who felt strongly, as we're led to believe those voters did, would have voted. So it's as likely if there were more of a turn out, that percentage could drop.

26000 Elephants

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You don't know that. I would suggest anyone who felt strongly, as we're led to believe those voters did, would have voted. So it's as likely if there were more of a turn out, that percentage could drop.

Either do you.

But you are being extremely naive/clutching at straws to believe that a higher turnout would have any detrimental impact on the outcome for Casey.

As a free insight for you, I voted Casey. Not for any endorsement of his political views ( he doesn't seem to have any coherant ones) or his sparkling personality, but for his decision to stand by his remarks in the face of an indignant onslaught by sections of the media.

The last thing this country needs is an "alt-right" like movement which will ultimately lead to our own version of Trump in power. If you support the vilification of someone for simply expressing an honestly held view, then that is what is in store.

Tell me how

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I voted Casey. Not for any endorsement of his political views ( he doesn't seem to have any coherant ones) or his sparkling personality, but for his decision to stand by his remarks in the face of an indignant onslaught by sections of the media.

How many of those that voted for him do you think did so because he stood up to people telling him to retract his remarks or because they felt that travellers were being treated favourably and that that was unfair.

I would suggest that it was by some distance a majority of those with the latter motivation.

Also voted for someone to help them towards a role for a reason other than you thinking they would be good in the role is counter intuitive towards helping form a positive government.

FrancieBrady

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Either do you.

But you are being extremely naive/clutching at straws to believe that a higher turnout would have any detrimental impact on the outcome for Casey.

As a free insight for you, I voted Casey. Not for any endorsement of his political views ( he doesn't seem to have any coherant ones) or his sparkling personality, but for his decision to stand by his remarks in the face of an indignant onslaught by sections of the media.

The last thing this country needs is an "alt-right" like movement which will ultimately lead to our own version of Trump in power. If you support the vilification of someone for simply expressing an honestly held view, then that is what is in store.

He didn't stand by them, he took a weekend off and then said he didn't want to be elected in the basis of his traveller remarks.

'Not coherent'?? Not even making sense, is our Peter.

26000 Elephants

Tell me how wrote: »

How many of those that voted for him do you think did so because he stood up to people telling him to retract his remarks or because they felt that travellers were being treated favourably and that that was unfair.

I would suggest that it was by some distance a majority of those with the latter motivation.

Also voted for someone to help them towards a role for a reason other than you thinking they would be good in the role is counter intuitive towards helping form a positive government.

I cant speak for the motivations of others, but I'm sure it was a mixture of the two. It was disingenuous of some media commentators ( Gene Kerrigan is a prime example) to characterise them all as "racists" or "Nazis".

On your last point, it was a Presidential election, not a general election. But all politics is local, and the same dynamic is evidenced by the support for the likes of Lowry and the Healy-Raes.

Tell me how

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I cant speak for the motivations of others, but I'm sure it was a mixture of the two. It was disingenuous of some media commentators ( Gene Kerrigan is a prime example) to characterise them all as "racists" or "Nazis".

On your last point, it was a Presidential election, not a general election. But all politics is local, and the same dynamic is evidenced by the support for the likes of Lowry and the Healy-Raes.

But people who support the Healy-Raes are voting for someone to represent their area as well as possible. In very simple terms could it not be argued that that is what every one of the members of Dail Eireann are asked to do as their primary focus. The ministers are then asked to take on the role of responsibility for specific areas with a national focus. Michael Healy-Rae discussed this and said, it's parish pump politics when it is him representing his constituents in Kerry but when Tony Gregory was doing it for the people of inner city Dublin he was praised from all corners for it.

Even though it was a Presidential election, I feel it is misleading to give a vote to someone as a protest vote if you do not feel they are the best candidate available for a role. It muddies the water as to the true sentiment of the electorate and gives credence to their position when it might not be warranted.

26000 Elephants

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He didn't stand by them, he took a weekend off and then said he didn't want to be elected in the basis of his traveller remarks.

'Not coherent'?? Not even making sense, is our Peter.

Ok then, post a link to where he retracted his statements. Taking a weekend off and making that statement does not constitute a retraction.

Anyway, you are missing his greatest achievement: showing how fickle the Shinner vote is in reality. It doesnt take much to shift it, does it?

FrancieBrady

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Ok then, post a link to where he retracted his statements. Taking a weekend off and making that statement does not constitute a retraction.

I didn't say retracted his statement, he didn't stand by it. He didn't want to be elected on the basis of it. Which kinda suggests he wouldn't do anything about it.

Anyway, you are missing his greatest achievement: showing how fickle the Shinner vote is in reality. It doesnt take much to shift it, does it?

Not that I voted for SF, but they were polling 6-7% when Peter was polling 1-2%
and SF finished in the same 6-7% when Peter was on 23 %
Higgins fell from 70% to 56% while Gallagher fell from 14% to 6%.

As they say in America...do the maths.

26000 Elephants

Tell me how wrote: »

But people who support the Healy-Raes are voting for someone to represent their area as well as possible.

In reality its the opposite: People voted for them *despite* knowing they would not be in a representative position (unless a hung Dail). Their vote is, in large part, a 2 fingered gesture to the established parties.

Having said that, you wont find a harder working politician in the country than a Healy-Rae. The fact that he lines his own pockets along the way is orthogonal....

I feel it is misleading to give a vote to someone as a protest vote

Perhaps, but its a perfectly valid way to exercise your suffrage.

Tell me how

26000 Elephants wrote: »

In reality its the opposite: People voted for them *despite* knowing they would not be in a representative position (unless a hung Dail). Their vote is, in large part, a 2 fingered gesture to the established parties.

Having said that, you wont find a harder working politician in the country than a Healy-Rae. The fact that he lines his own pockets along the way is orthogonal....

Perhaps, but its a perfectly valid way to exercise your suffrage.

The first bolded sentence and the second contradict each other.
The rest of the post doesn't make much sense.

James Brown

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Either do you.

But you are being extremely naive/clutching at straws to believe that a higher turnout would have any detrimental impact on the outcome for Casey.

As a free insight for you, I voted Casey. Not for any endorsement of his political views ( he doesn't seem to have any coherant ones) or his sparkling personality, but for his decision to stand by his remarks in the face of an indignant onslaught by sections of the media.

The last thing this country needs is an "alt-right" like movement which will ultimately lead to our own version of Trump in power. If you support the vilification of someone for simply expressing an honestly held view, then that is what is in store.

That was the point.
Nope. You're the one stating it would result in a higher vote for Casey. You don't know that...neither do I, neither does Casey. So it's kind of ironic Casey is the closest we've gotten to Trump and you're willing to vote for him because if him and his kind don't have a voice we'll end up with politicians like him?
It's scaremongering over a nationally nothing issue. It wouldn't make the list for the average punter, going by the electoral result, lack of interest and Casey getting 20 odd percent in a low turn out election.

26000 Elephants

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't say retracted his statement, he didn't stand by it.

Save it for the semantics dome, E.B White


As for SF polling: IPSOS (12/10/2018) in Irish Times has SF on 11%, No?
"Regular" SF vote is in the 15% mark generally, so even allowing for Mary Lou's poor judgement, it was still an appalling result.

James Brown

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I cant speak for the motivations of others, but I'm sure it was a mixture of the two. It was disingenuous of some media commentators ( Gene Kerrigan is a prime example) to characterise them all as "racists" or "Nazis".

On your last point, it was a Presidential election, not a general election. But all politics is local, and the same dynamic is evidenced by the support for the likes of Lowry and the Healy-Raes.

If not racist, certainly ignorant, ill informed and he lied. That should be enough to turn anyone off to be fair. Simply calling him out on his ignorance is not repressing free speech. Should we give every alternative, (being nice) 'thinker' as much media attention as those dealing with or concerned about national issues the public have an interest in?

26000 Elephants

Tell me how wrote: »

The first bolded sentence and the second contradict each other.

No they don't. MHR spends an inordinate amount of time turning up to events, making representations to KCC for poeple, etc. mostly with a view to consolidating his vote. That he cant actually effect how state money si spent in the county is a different matter.

The rest of the post doesn't make much sense.

Of course it doesnt.

FrancieBrady

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Save it for the semantics dome, E.B White

If he stood by it, it was in a pretty lilly livered way. But he has reached hero status now, so is unimpeachable with his faithful. Carry on

oscarBravo

26000 Elephants wrote: »

As a free insight for you, I voted Casey. Not for any endorsement of his political views ( he doesn't seem to have any coherant ones) or his sparkling personality, but for his decision to stand by his remarks in the face of an indignant onslaught by sections of the media.

And you think that is the overriding quality required of a president? Not to be a coherent and dignified representative of the whole nation, just an ability to refuse to back down from crass remarks when called out on them?

That seems like a spectacularly low bar for a candidate to reach in order to convince you of their suitability for the presidency.

26000 Elephants

oscarBravo wrote: »

And you think that is the overriding quality required of a president? Not to be a coherent and dignified representative of the whole nation, just an ability to refuse to back down from crass remarks when called out on them?

That seems like a spectacularly low bar for a candidate to reach in order to convince you of their suitability for the presidency.

That quite a conclusion to jump to.

I stated my reasons for voting Casey quite clearly: They did not include "Not to be a coherent and dignified representative of the whole nation".

As for 'crass remarks': I dont think they were crass. You may feel they were crass, in which case I would suggest you have an incredibly low bar for what you consider to be 'crass' and perhaps it is this that leads to your genera intolerance for those who hold dissenting views to your own.

mrbrianj

26000 Elephants wrote: »

No they don't. MHR spends an inordinate amount of time turning up to events, making representations to KCC for poeple, etc. mostly with a view to consolidating his vote. That he cant actually effect how state money si spent in the county is a different matter.



Of course it doesnt.

That misses what happens "on the ground" of South Kerry. Before Jackie Healy Rae was elected large areas of South Kerry were just ignored - the power was elsewhere in Kerry. When JHR got elected he was lucky by how the numbers fell, and he was in a position to have some influence. The people of those areas of South Kerry felt represented, where before they felt left out. Would their interests have been looked after either way - who knows?

Now Michael Healy Rae moved in to that spot, and as he stated he is the representative of the people of south kerry - thats what he is elected for. As he said "if everybody looked after their own area the same way, the country would be in a better place".

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't say retracted his statement, he didn't stand by it. He didn't want to be elected on the basis of it. Which kinda suggests he wouldn't do anything about it.

Not that I voted for SF, but they were polling 6-7% when Peter was polling 1-2%
and SF finished in the same 6-7% when Peter was on 23 %
Higgins fell from 70% to 56% while Gallagher fell from 14% to 6%.

As they say in America...do the maths.

That is two elections in a row where the number of people voting for Sinn Fein has fallen.

Their percentage vote has shown more volatility but the absolute number of people voting for them has decreased.

Luckily, the increased turnout in a general election should help them reverse the absolute number trend at least. However, they will need it to increase.

Liadh Ni Riadha got 93,987 votes in the Presidential election.

AAA-PBP got 84,168 votes in the last general election, and they didn't run in every constituency.

295,319 voted for Sinn Fein in the last general election in 2016, so she only got about 30% of the vote out. They got 323,300 votes in the European Elections in 2014. Those are the hard facts, will be interesting to see where the party goes from here.

Tell me how

blanch152 wrote: »

Those are the hard facts, will be interesting to see where the party goes from here.

I've stated on other threads that I believe the DUP could be heading towards becoming extinct with what is happening in the UK. Largely becuase if a United Ireland comes about they will have to alter their MO radically.

Sinn Fein may find that they have to do the same thing.