THE TUESDAY-WEDNESDAY 24 HOUR SNAPSHOT PRESIDENTIAL POLL . . .

LordSutch

Now that we finally have a clear view of all the candidates (in alphabetical order), I thought this was the time for a quick 24 hour snapshot poll, running from late Tuesday evening, to 21:50 (Wednesday/ 28th) just for 24 hours. Doesn't proove anything, just a bit of fun with all the runners now lined up for the Áras

Mary Davis
Seán Gallagher
Michael D. Higgins
Martin McGuinness
Gay Mitchell
David Norris
Dana R. Scallon
*None of the above

Remember, this 24 hour Poll opens right now, Tuesday night, & closes 21:50, Wednesday.

Quick, get your votes in now!

thebman

Wow, don't know if that is representative of the population :P

I think some more scandal will come out about that particular candidate that will reduce that number myself.

johngalway

Purely along party lines I voted Mitchell.

But I do wonder if I shouldn't vote Michael D. just to keep the ex-terrorist and the questionable senator out.

Ho-hum.

JabbaTheHut

Norris back in. Interesting to see what they dig up on him this time

johngalway

JabbaTheHut wrote: »

Norris back in. Interesting to see what they dig up on him this time

They?

JabbaTheHut

johngalway wrote: »

They?

Yes, they. Those who wants to see anyone else in the Aras but him. Look at the results of the poll so far. He's way ahead. Not scienetific, but that's what boardies voted. He's the one to beat, and they will do whatever it takes to make sure he won't win.

Liam Byrne

JabbaTheHut wrote: »

Yes, they. Those who wants to see anyone else in the Aras but him. Look at the results of the poll so far. He's way ahead. Not scienetific, but that's what boardies voted. He's the one to beat, and they will do whatever it takes to make sure he won't win.

And the reason they don't want him in the Aras is.......?

BTW, I'm not an "anyone but him", because McGuinness is even more objectionable.

Eliot Rosewater

At this stage I'm thinking of voting Gallagher because

• He's not putting election posters up and
• He asked the councils to stop nominating him when he got the required four

which were nice breaks from the usual political shenanigans we see, erm, all the time.

I'm ranking last

• McGuiness - former terrorist.
• Mary Davis - for letting councils nominate her when she didn't need them. I detest that kind of politics.
• Dana - whilst all candidates are running to massage their egos (perhaps with the exception of Gallagher, for whom money is a concern) Dana simply takes the piss in this regard.

JabbaTheHut

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And the reason they don't want him in the Aras is.......?

BTW, I'm not an "anyone but him", because McGuinness is even more objectionable.

That's their problem. Maybe they have something against his sexuality. Maybe they don't like his politics. Maybe they don't believe he's the right man for the job. But for whatever reason, there are some people that have dug up things before he pulled out a couple of months ago, that weren't even supporters of the other candidates, that didn't want him selected as President. During elections, this will happen, but usually from, or through, the other candidates. The They I'm referring to don't seem to have a preference on who gets in, once it's not him.

Sir Oxman

JabbaTheHut wrote: »

Yes, they. Those who wants to see anyone else in the Aras but him. Look at the results of the poll so far. He's way ahead. Not scienetific, but that's what boardies voted. He's the one to beat, and they will do whatever it takes to make sure he won't win.

The poll is about 2 hours old - wait till the party hacks discover it!

Liam Byrne

JabbaTheHut wrote: »

That's their problem. Maybe they have something against his sexuality. Maybe they don't like his politics. Maybe they don't believe he's the right man for the job.

The last one of those sentences is a perfectly valid opinion to have.

The top 3 don't apply - at least not in my case.

johngalway

JabbaTheHut wrote: »

Yes, they. Those who wants to see anyone else in the Aras but him. Look at the results of the poll so far. He's way ahead. Not scienetific, but that's what boardies voted. He's the one to beat, and they will do whatever it takes to make sure he won't win.

The reason I asked was for clarification of your interpretation of "they".

I think I got that

I'm "they".

I don't want Norris up the Aras thanks. My conscience is severely troubled by the letters he has written. It is also troubled by the sentiments he has previously publicly expressed as having a want to have being abused, and seeing how he wasn't was an indication of how few paedos were in Ireland, in the 70s for Gods sake!

My other legitimate gripe with him is his decision making. He pulled out of the race because of the letters he wrote. Left it to others to unearth more letters, the claim the whole issue has been addressed and put to bed. It hasn't!

Nothing has changed, and the only reason he's re-enetered the race is the polls told him he has a chance of winning.

That is self centered/wrong or grossly delusional.

Nothing, absolutely nothing changed between when he retired from the race, to when he re-entered it.

JabbaTheHut

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The last one of those sentences is a perfectly valid opinion to have.

The top 3 don't apply - at least not in my case.

Yep. That maybe the only reason. I'm not going to second guess why, but there is some that are willing to "dig up", as per my first post, to make sure he doesn't get in.

gambiaman wrote: »

The poll is about 2 hours old - wait till the party hacks discover it!

Lol. They should be due on soon.

johngalway

JabbaTheHut wrote: »

"dig up"

What constitutes digging up though? I mean, no one wrote the letters but David Norris himself, so it's not like they're some imagined wrong doing of some hater. He did it, he has to answer for it, just like if I drive too fast and there's traffic corps behind me.

caseyann

JabbaTheHut wrote: »

Yes, they. Those who wants to see anyone else in the Aras but him. Look at the results of the poll so far. He's way ahead. Not scienetific, but that's what boardies voted. He's the one to beat, and they will do whatever it takes to make sure he won't win.

It doesnt really matter as in all polls Martin is out in front of polls.
Its a who knows times.:D

JabbaTheHut

johngalway wrote: »

What constitutes digging up though? I mean, no one wrote the letters but David Norris himself, so it's not like they're some imagined wrong doing of some hater. He did it, he has to answer for it, just like if I drive too fast and there's traffic corps behind me.

this is a "dug up"

An emotional David Norris today strongly refuted allegations contained in a ten year old article which were brought to the surface yesterday on Joe Duffy’s Liveline programme.

Liam Byrne

caseyann wrote: »

It doesnt really matter as in all polls Martin is out in front of polls.
Its a who knows times.:D

Pretty apt, considering all the questions that he & SF don't want people to ask.

johngalway

JabbaTheHut wrote: »

this is a "dug up"

"Norris said the article had not had an electoral impact on him before now, and wondered why the article was resurfacing now when he was seeking nomination for the presidency."

Are ya kidding me?

Someone said about Irish Presidential elections that they are so dirty because there's so little at stake, and I agree.

The Presidential elections are based on the person running. The person running should expect to be taken to task for anything they ever said in their lives.

That's the "why".

If someone wants to run for the post they better do one of two things:

Make sure they have no skeletons in their closets.
Make sure they have either an answer or an alibi.

johngalway

the Daily Wail article took up something he said in the '70's which is a lot older.

But, the important thing is that "he said it". And that's important because we need to have some insight into the person who's running to be our President.

And, to be blunt, I won't vote for anyone who can't answer those questions to my satisfaction.

And that's likely why Pres elections are the way they are.

drunkmonkey

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Pretty apt, considering all the questions that he & SF don't want people to ask.

I think he's just asked Gay Byrne to call him a liar to his face, the TV debates are going to be awesome.

caseyann

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I think he's just asked Gay Byrne to call him a liar to his face, the TV debates are going to be awesome.

Where? :eek::D

johngalway

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I think he's just asked Gay Byrne to call him a liar to his face, the TV debates are going to be awesome.

The one time in my life I'm rooting for Gaybo

drunkmonkey

caseyann wrote: »

Where? :eek::D

Was on Vincent Brown, tomorrows papers front of the Star, The indo is on Norris's case.

This is going to be one shotgun president race, Think Gay Mitchell could be playing it cute, let them all implode over the next few weeks, and step over the body's on the way into the Aras.

dark crystal

Encouraging to see Norris doing so well in the poll, although I doubt he will have such a large lead come the actual election.

Still a huge older vote in Ireland and Norris is likely to falter there.

Sir Oxman

Higgins is the one that hasn't put his foot in it - YET...

woodoo

The Sunday Independent will be stand clear this weekend ripping into McGuinness and Norris

JabbaTheHut

johngalway wrote: »

"Norris said the article had not had an electoral impact on him before now, and wondered why the article was resurfacing now when he was seeking nomination for the presidency."

Are ya kidding me?



Make sure they have no skeletons in their closets.
Make sure they have either an answer or an alibi.

Are you kidding me? He's in his, what,60's? He's been in politics for a long time. Everyone has a skeleton in their closet. Unless you're a hermit, that's going to be the case. And even being a hermit would be used against you as a skeleton in your closet.

Politics are a minefiled of skeletons in the closet of various different degrees. I didn't post as a defender of Norris like this. But if you're content on concentrating on what his detractors say, then that's your prerogative.

Btw. Pedophiles don't announce that they abuse children. They hide it very well. So. Call it. Are you saying David Norris is a pedophile, or condones pedophilia? Yes. then that's a different argument. No., and your argument is invalid.

johngalway

JabbaTheHut wrote: »

So. Call it. Are you saying David Norris is a pedophile, or condones pedophilia? Yes. then that's a different argument. No., and your argument is invalid.

*This bit is me blowing a big raspberry at you*

Why? Because calling my argument invalid is, well, dumb.

I didn't say any of the above. If I had said it, I would have said it. It'd be there.

It's not. So I didn't.

David Norris' entire ability to make judgements is called into question based purely upon what he has said, and what he has written. Some of which troubles my conscience hugely.

If you wish to make an argument based on something else, then you go right ahead and make it, don't be putting words in my mouth.

RichardAnd

I went for Higgans as he's a man of culture and I think he'd make a respectable and non controversial president. Last on my list would be Norris for obvious reasons.

JabbaTheHut

johngalway wrote: »

*This bit is me blowing a big raspberry at you*

Why? Because calling my argument invalid is, well, dumb.

I didn't say any of the above. If I had said it, I would have said it. It'd be there.

It's not. So I didn't.

David Norris' entire ability to make judgements is called into question based purely upon what he has said, and what he has written. Some of which troubles my conscience hugely.

If you wish to make an argument based on something else, then you go right ahead and make it, don't be putting words in my mouth.

Make sure they have no skeletons in their closets.
Make sure they have either an answer or an alibi.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I called your bluff, and you failed

Liam Byrne

JabbaTheHut wrote: »

johngalway wrote: »

*This bit is me blowing a big raspberry at you*

Why? Because calling my argument invalid is, well, dumb.

I didn't say any of the above. If I had said it, I would have said it. It'd be there.

It's not. So I didn't.

David Norris' entire ability to make judgements is called into question based purely upon what he has said, and what he has written. Some of which troubles my conscience hugely.

If you wish to make an argument based on something else, then you go right ahead and make it, don't be putting words in my mouth.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I called your bluff, and you failed

No, you started asking him about stuff he hadn't said or hinted at, and most of it was the typical pro-Norris rubbish that we've seen for the past fortnight, pretending that everyone who objects is calling Norris a paedophile in order to falsely make their objection appear unfair and unfounded.

LordSutch

RichardAnd wrote: »

I went for Higgans as he's a man of culture and I think he'd make a respectable and non controversial president. Last on my list would be Norris for obvious reasons.

I may also go for Higgins? and as you say 'he's a man of culture', but the same could also be said of Norris, very well read, very articulate, looks quite Presidential too. Sometimes I think of Higgins as a throw back to the pre-Robinson days, an older dusty 'William Hartnell' type character (early 60s Doctor Who), with a touch of the Michael Foot's about him

People of a certain age will appreciate this^

Norris (or Higgins) for me.

mikemac

Galway United is the laughing stock of the LOI and Michael D is their president

I've decided to give the man a second chance to be a President and selected him in the poll

kraggy

Can't believe Norris is so far ahead in that poll.

Coillte_Bhoy

johngalway wrote: »

Someone said about Irish Presidential elections that they are so dirty because there's so little at stake, and I agree.

Who said that and give examples of other Presidential elections that have been 'dirty'?

johngalway

JabbaTheHut wrote: »

Make sure they have no skeletons in their closets.
Make sure they have either an answer or an alibi.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I called your bluff, and you failed

Bluff? What're you on about?

Anything I've said here is fact, deal with it. Norris is in trouble because of things he's said and written. He/his team seem to be of the opinion that situation is done and dusted, I'm afraid it's not, far far from it. The sooner he/they come to that realization the better for him. The longer he lets all that drag out, the worse for him.

Zubeneschamali

kraggy wrote: »

Can't believe Norris is so far ahead in that poll.

I can't believe McGuinness is so low. SF did way better on the boards.ie general election poll than in the real GE.

bijapos

Voted Michale D Higgins in the poll here, more by default than anything else.

David Norris: Was thinking of voting Norris simply because of what he has done here to get the laws on homosexuality changed in his lifetime. After the Israeli letters I'd never vote for him though.

Martin McGuinness: if he admitted to his past it might be something but he hasn't told us the half of it so he is out.

Gay Mitchell, Dana: right wing christian conservatives so no thanks to both of them.

Mary Davis: deviuous and cunning to an extent by the sounds of it. The fact that she didn't stop County Councils voting hfor here when she had the 4 nominations and her interview on Drivetime on Monday tell me she really isn't presidential material. There is a good article in the present edition of the Phoenix on her. I still put money on her, €10 at 16/1 and a further €20 at 11/1 as Oct 27th is a long long way away and for some people like Denis O'Brien she seems to be the preferred candidate. Don't want her as president though.

Sean Gallagher: if it wasn't for his FF connections I'd vote for him. The country needs someone with a business background for the next few years, its surprising how much is achieved through tittle tattle with business people at canape sessions in the White House, Elyssee Palace and other such places. But like Norris and McGuinness his past doesn't do it for me.


Still four weeks to go and anything can happen. It'll be a good dirty campaign, I look forward to it.

johngalway

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Who said that and give examples of other Presidential elections that have been 'dirty'?

Someone on a radio programme on RTE1 during the past ten days, most likely Pat Kenny show or Marian Finucane, as I loosely quoted them I'll leave it to yourself to do that research.

mikemac

The fact that she didn't stop County Councils voting hfor here when she had the 4 nominations

So what?

She worked for her nominations and doesn't have a party machine to back her up.
If the other independents are struggling it's not her job to help them

And one of the independents had decades in the Oireachtas and time to build up contacts. That's an advantage Mary Davis did not have

JabbaTheHut

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No, you started asking him about stuff he hadn't said or hinted at, and most of it was the typical pro-Norris rubbish that we've seen for the past fortnight, pretending that everyone who objects is calling Norris a paedophile in order to falsely make their objection appear unfair and unfounded.

johngalway wrote: »

Bluff? What're you on about?

Anything I've said here is fact, deal with it. Norris is in trouble because of things he's said and written. He/his team seem to be of the opinion that situation is done and dusted, I'm afraid it's not, far far from it. The sooner he/they come to that realization the better for him. The longer he lets all that drag out, the worse for him.

Sigh. Again:

Make sure they have no skeletons in their closets.
Make sure they have either an answer or an alibi.


Now most of what Norris has been dealing with of negative publicity has got pedophilia written all over it. Helen Lucy Burke pretty well acussed him of condoning it, and the letter he wrote defending his ex partner had to do with sex with a minor.

Now I said already that he probably does have some form of skeletons in his closet, but as of yet, the only things that were brought up in his campagin was pedophilia related. So you tell me, what skeletons are there ye accusing Norris of if not pedophilia related. I brought it up, and neither of you were man enough to follow through with your arguments.


However, I think you're right. The situtation is not done and dusted. He'll have to deal with it before the election, and his handling of it the last time was poor.

johngalway

JabbaTheHut wrote: »

Now I said already that he probably does have some form of skeletons in his closet, but as of yet, the only things that were brought up in his campagin was pedophilia related. So you tell me, what skeletons are there ye accusing Norris of if not pedophilia related. I brought it up, and neither of you were man enough to follow through with your arguments.

You need to go back and read it properly.

I said that "If someone wants to run for the post".

I did not say "If David Norris wants to run for the post".

I haven't accused him of anything other than extremely poor judgement calls and extremely bizarre statements. All of which he has done!

force eleven

Michael D. He is, as is well known, a man of reading and culture, and understands the symbolism of the Presidency. I don't see it being a big ego trip for him, unlike Norris.

JabbaTheHut

johngalway wrote: »

You need to go back and read it properly.

I said that "If someone wants to run for the post".

I did not say "If David Norris wants to run for the post".

I haven't accused him of anything other than extremely poor judgement calls and extremely bizarre statements. All of which he has done!

You knew who I was talking about.

drunkmonkey

JabbaTheHut wrote: »

However, I think you're right. The situtation is not done and dusted. He'll have to deal with it before the election, and his handling of it the last time was poor.

Handled it poorly is an understatement, He bowed out, done the right thing and should have kept his head down, he has revealed nothing and is now under the impression he has the will of the people(from facebook) he has to no longer answer any more question on the subject as it's finished. The man is delusional if the thinks that's going to wash with catholic Ireland who will make up the majority of voters let alone that but the media are going to crucify him, they wanted him back to sell more advertising not because they want him there, the man is being played for a fool by the media.
Micheal D done the wrong thing, He has lost my vote because of it(and his slightly annoying voice), Norris is probably going to have to stand down again. He's not president material.

Zubeneschamali

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The man is delusional if the thinks that's going to wash with catholic Ireland.

"Catholic Ireland" was never going to vote for a gay protestant.

mikemac

If Facebook,twitter, Joe Duffy text ins and online polls decided elections Howard Dean would be President of the USA and Ron Paul would be next

They mean very little

Not aimed at you OP, more the facebook campaign convinced Norris will win

staker

Voted for none of the above.

If there was a gun to my head,well then it would have to be Martin McGuinness.






/Gets coat...

dvpower

Does anyone know will Boards be putting up a poll, akin to the one they did for the GE, with transfers and all?

drunkmonkey

dvpower wrote: »

Does anyone know will Boards be putting up a poll, akin to the one they did for the GE, with transfers and all?

When do the transfers kick in, can one candidate get an over all majority, do you know what that would likely be?

drunkmonkey

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

"Catholic Ireland" was never going to vote for a gay protestant.

So you'd think a Gay Protestant mixed up in boy rape scandal would have more sense to run for president in about a 95% catholic country which still hasn't fully come to terms with a clerical abuse scandal in relation to young boys.
The polls as they are not are absolute garbage, there's no way norris has that support country wide and Gay Mitchell will get a lot more than there saying.