Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

alaimacerc

end of the road wrote: »

i would disagree, it's not a clump of cells.

What isn't? Constitution (... for a little while longer...) defines "the unborn" as including a blastocyst. That's a couple of hundred cells, with only the very first stages of any differentiation at all. Does that possess "clump" nature?

Plus of course, the religious and hardcore noer-than-no types insist that, never mind the already ultra-conservative law, personhood actually starts at conception. Is a zygote excluded from being a "clump" on the grounds of it just being a single cell?

alaimacerc

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Not inconsistent at all.
I and most other No siders have been consistent all along. They oppose freely available abortion in this country in all but the most extenuating of circumstances. Extenuating includes lack of consent in the pregnancy, FFA, serious risk to mothers life, and extreme mental distress.

I'd be interested in the basis for your characterisation of "most No-siders". Is this the "silent majority? Of the loud minority that were publicly taking a much harder-line stance.

And "extreme mental distress": does that differ from we're after several months of listening to being prejudicially disparaged as "vague mental health grounds"?

alaimacerc

Graces7 wrote: »

It is not, ever OK to abort a healthy foetus ( and all are innocent so stop with the emotionally overloaded terminology please).

I'm fairly sure "innocent" is simply echoing the terminology of the No side. Rónán Mullen made an especially unfortunate intervention along these lines, saying (paraphrasing as closely as I can), "there's two victims in rape cases, the woman and the innocent victim, that's the child". (Making the woman what... the non-innocent victim?)

retro:electro

Just a nice reminder that it’s two weeks since Yes defeated No by 66/34.

It’s still just as sweet.

_Dara_

I voted in a very rural polling station in the west of Ireland. I found out from my father today that the results from that station were 52% No, 48% Yes. At the same station for the SSM ref, it was 70% No, 30% Yes.

For a conservative, rural outpost to only slightly go against the grain is very surprising.

alaimacerc

_Dara_ wrote: »

I voted in a very rural polling station in the west of Ireland. I found out from my father today that the results from that station were 52% No, 48% Yes. At the same station for the SSM ref, it was 70% No, 30% Yes.

For a conservative, rural outpost to only slightly go against the grain is very surprising.

Immediately after the exit polls, I was seeing comments on social media to the effect of, "how can this be more popular than SSM?!" Not from No's, mind, but from Yes people completely consternated at what they were seeing. And maybe pinching themselves, and hoping RTE and the IT weren't just pranking us all. Or the pollsters themselves being pranked by No voters, exercising their Mental Reservation even past the bitter end!

Changed times, indeed.

.......

This post has been deleted.

alaimacerc

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's maybe over-interpreting it a bit too much! It's not a popularity contest, much less one that travels three-years back in time.

(I just happened to be looking at the results of 1972 referenda -- quick, name those fast, without googling! -- and those both passed with mega-landslides. Somewhat hard to compare directly!)

It was a bit of a shocker alright. But it affected many many more people directly.

And it's not "merely" a civil right -- it's the criminal law. (Even if only ever deployed by way of chilling affect, and lack of provision.)

I saw a comment some time before the ref, saying something on the lines of "of course, we'll get legal SSM here, because some men want that -- but we won't get legal abortion, because that only affects women". Which aside from being extremely cynical, didn't even seem to make any actual logical sense to me either, as a far as individual self-interest is concerned. But I couldn't help but worry if she was somehow actually right...

_Dara_

I think people expected this referendum to be closer so were more determined to get out and vote. Since the SSM referendum, both Trump and Brexit have happened and people realise how important their vote is!

ArmaniJeanss

alaimacerc wrote: »

Immediately after the exit polls, I was seeing comments on social media to the effect of, "how can this be more popular than SSM?!" Not from No's, mind, but from Yes people completely consternated at what they were seeing. And maybe pinching themselves, and hoping RTE and the IT weren't just pranking us all.

SSM always looked like a foregone conclusion, so people might not have bothered. But Trump and Brexit in the meantime focussed people not to think there was such a thing as a foregone conclusion.

SSM was 3 years ago so the register had increased by everyone who was aged 15->18 back then, probably 80% Yes Voters. And at the other end, those exiting the register would likely have been more No voters.

To an extent (with respect to the lgbt posters here who gave great support) this one might have mattered a bit more to people. People might vaguely know a gay person, whereas just about the entire country has someone in their life who is or will be a woman of childbearing age.

iguana

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

SSM was 3 years ago so the register had increased by everyone who was aged 15->18 back then, probably 80% Yes Voters.

Higher than that I'd say. The Behaviours and Attitudes survey showed that the 18-24 age group was 87% Yes. Women in that age group were 90% Yes and the biggest amount of new voters were women in that age group. The odds are that 90%+ of the new voters registered since 2015 were Yes voters.

Loafing Oaf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I'm convinced most pro-lifers know this deep down and the defiant statements about carrying on the fight are just going through the motions.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/breda-o-brien-anti-abortion-movement-has-not-given-up-and-will-not-disappear-1.3510365

I've cited this Breda O'Brien article before to illustrate this. If she genuinely believed the "Anti-abortion movement has not given up and will not disappear," would the article not have included even one sentence along the lines of "The first thing pro-life people need to do now is x or y."?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/pro-lifers-must-regroup-in-the-shadow-of-the-mainstream-1.3521418
Her's a guy with at least some sort of concrete suggestions on a way forward for the pro-life movement

the great challenge now confronting the pro-life movement in Ireland is to build up an infrastructure of cultural influence and formation that does not depend on the support, patronage or goodwill of politicians and mainstream media. Such an infrastructure could include alternative online media, support groups for families and single parents, counselling services for pregnant women, support networks and legal assistance for conscientious objectors, and a revitalisation of parish communities.

Although as he says himself

operating at the margins of the establishment may seem rather unglamorous and may even appear defeatist.

iguana

My parents had an interesting conversation with a No voter during the week. A friends of theirs in her late 60s - 70s. She said she felt voting Yes was the right thing to do but in the polling booth was overcome by a fear of God watching and just couldn't go against a lifetime of teaching. Hearing the exit polls on Friday night was a massive relief as she really, really wanted the 8th to be repealed and were glad her fear hadn't prevented it from happening.

My grandmother in her late 80s didn't vote, as she didn't in 2015. I met a lot of older people while canvassing who said they wouldn't be voting this time. I think that comes from a similar instinct of not being able to vote Yes after a lifetime of church membership but not wanting to vote No.

Taytoland

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I'm convinced most pro-lifers know this deep down and the defiant statements about carrying on the fight are just going through the motions.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/breda-o-brien-anti-abortion-movement-has-not-given-up-and-will-not-disappear-1.3510365

I've cited this Breda O'Brien article before to illustrate this. If she genuinely believed the "Anti-abortion movement has not given up and will not disappear," would the article not have included even one sentence along the lines of "The first thing pro-life people need to do now is x or y."?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/pro-lifers-must-regroup-in-the-shadow-of-the-mainstream-1.3521418
Her's a guy with at least some sort of concrete suggestions on a way forward for the pro-life movement

the great challenge now confronting the pro-life movement in Ireland is to build up an infrastructure of cultural influence and formation that does not depend on the support, patronage or goodwill of politicians and mainstream media. Such an infrastructure could include alternative online media, support groups for families and single parents, counselling services for pregnant women, support networks and legal assistance for conscientious objectors, and a revitalisation of parish communities.

Although as he says himself

operating at the margins of the establishment may seem rather unglamorous and may even appear defeatist.

Losing the vote for the pro life side was the end. No coming back from this. They need to just move on now or move out of the country. The legislation once enacted will never be removed, the flood gates will have opened. Over 60% of the people don't want the old abortion laws, this can not be disputed or argued with. What's done is done.

Wrongway1985

Taytoland wrote: »

Losing the vote for the pro life side was the end. No coming back from this. They need to just move on now or move out of the country.

Malta prob their best bet doesn't look like they'll be many years left of an abortion free Northern Ireland :pac:

Taytoland

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Losing the vote for the pro life side was the end. No coming back from this. They need to just move on now or move out of the country.

Malta prob their best bet doesn't look like they'll be many years left of an abortion free Northern Ireland :pac:

Will take some amount of work before legislation is passed via the assembly in NI. Everyone thinks it's just the DUP who are skeptical of abortion. The SDLP MLAs I'd argue are more against it than the UUP MLAs.

_Dara_

iguana wrote: »

My parents had an interesting conversation with a No voter during the week. A friends of theirs in her late 60s - 70s. She said she felt voting Yes was the right thing to do but in the polling booth was overcome by a fear of God watching and just couldn't go against a lifetime of teaching. Hearing the exit polls on Friday night was a massive relief as she really, really wanted the 8th to be repealed and were glad her fear hadn't prevented it from happening.

My grandmother in her late 80s didn't vote, as she didn't in 2015. I met a lot of older people while canvassing who said they wouldn't be voting this time. I think that comes from a similar instinct of not being able to vote Yes after a lifetime of church membership but not wanting to vote No.

I’ve said before that my father (mid 60s, practising Catholic) was very close to abstaining from voting because he was so utterly disgusted by the No campaign. He thought the Yes campaign made some good points so I wondered why he couldn’t just vote yes. But it’s very likely his religion that prevented him from doing that. He voted No in the end whilst making his disgust for the No campaign very vocally clear.

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

Will take some amount of work before legislation is passed via the assembly in NI. Everyone thinks it's just the DUP who are skeptical of abortion. The SDLP MLAs I'd argue are more against it than the UUP MLAs.

They'll sniff the wind coming from the polls and change position just like FG did. They will be championing it come the end of a campaign.
The SDLP are almost irrelevant at this stage anyhow.

Taytoland

How are the SDLP irrelevant when you will probably need all SDLP MLAs to back reform on abortion in a vote?

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

How are the SDLP irrelevant when you will probably need all SDLP MLAs to back reform on abortion in a vote?

They were discussing disbanding a short while ago or merging with FF. They will go with the majority on this imo, it would be the death knell for them if they align themselves with the DUP.

Arlene knows how toxic association with her own party is among nationalists/republicans, when she proudly trolled that some SF MLA's would vote with the DUP.

Taytoland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

How are the SDLP irrelevant when you will probably need all SDLP MLAs to back reform on abortion in a vote?

They were discussing disbanding a short while ago or merging with FF. They will go with the majority on this imo, it would be the death knell for them if they align themselves with the DUP.

Arlene knows how toxic association with her own party is among nationalists/republicans, when she proudly trolled that some SF MLA's would vote with the DUP.

You have some UUP MLAs in favour of reform on FFA, rape etc and some against and same with SDLP MLAs. It's not a question of aligning with the DUP. Abortion last time it was voted on two years ago in the Assembly was voted against reform on abortion, that was without the dreadful petition of concern being used/abused. 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35546399

[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The proposal to allow abortion in such cases was defeated by 59 votes to 40.



[/font]

The amendment relating to pregnancies which are the result of rape or incest was put forward by Anna Lo, also of the Alliance Party, and was defeated by by 64 votes to 30.

Now I know another Assembly election has happened but what would change in terms of the make up when you still have many of the same old faces. Unless someone can point out to me more reformers are in the chamber this time, it would be a waste of time.

Loafing Oaf

Taytoland wrote: »

Losing the vote for the pro life side was the end. No coming back from this. They need to just move on now or move out of the country. The legislation once enacted will never be removed, the flood gates will have opened. Over 60% of the people don't want the old abortion laws, this can not be disputed or argued with. What's done is done.

I'm sure pro-lifers with any cop-on know this, and yet they're coming out with the "We haven't gone away, you know" routine. I'm just wondering is this just bluster or do they have a way forward in mind that doesn't involve (for the forseeable future) seeking to repeal the legislation or reverse the referendum result.

Achasanai

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I'm sure pro-lifers with any cop-on know this, and yet they're coming out with the "We haven't gone away, you know" routine. I'm just wondering is this just bluster or do they have a way forward in mind that doesn't involve (for the forseeable future) seeking to repeal the legislation or reverse the referendum result.

I think it's quite clear that that reversing the referendum result is the first step, as it's already happening with the three court cases. Preventing the legislation will be the next step, with arguments ranging from (the at least honest) straight-up don't agree with it, to the more disingenuous (a lot of which we have here) based around the result 'not being a landslide' (:rolleyes:) as well as arguing over the exit poll, and the legitimacy of the citizens' Assembly.



Repealing the legislation will be the next route down the line, but I imagine there won't be a huge amount of appetite for it at that stage.

Loafing Oaf

Achasanai wrote: »

I think it's quite clear that that reversing the referendum result is the first step, as it's already happening with the three court cases. Preventing the legislation will be the next step, with arguments ranging from (the at least honest) straight-up don't agree with it, to the more disingenuous (a lot of which we have here) based around the result 'not being a landslide' (:rolleyes:) as well as arguing over the exit poll, and the legitimacy of the citizens' Assembly.



Repealing the legislation will be the next route down the line, but I imagine there won't be a huge amount of appetite for it at that stage.

But surely the brighter bulbs among them must know they haven't a prayer of achieving any of this and are focusing on what (if anything) can be achieved outside of the political process.

Annasopra

iguana wrote: »

My impression of Iona, the Life "Institute," etc is that they are not very good at adapting quickly to changed situations. From as soon as the Citizens Assembly vote made it clear that a referendum would be on the horizon they formed a plan to fight against any changes and a plan to fight back if they lost the referendum. Once it was decided that the referendum was for full repeal they thought they had a chance at winning and that any loss would be by a tiny margin. So their plan B was to get a dupe to take a court case and buy time while they used their mandate of nearly half the electorate to pressure politicians into delaying and diluting any legislation.

A few days before the referendum I drove past a huge Save the 8th stall collecting signatures for 'a petition against abortion.' At the time I thought it was weird as what was the purpose of that petition a few days before we voted. A few months before it would have been a way to gather names of potential volunteers for the campaign but that that point it could only be preparation to come out swinging after a Yes victory.

They have been preparing to fight legislation for abortion since before Repeal was voted for. They thought they'd be able to claim huge support from an enormous minority. They can't now, but they haven't adapted. They won't be able to delay or dilute legislation with a 2:1 loss because few politicians will go up against the majority of their constituency on this matter. But they are still going to continue on as they had planned despite the utterly changed landscape.

It's very, very stupid of them because they can't win and it means that Ireland is no longer this bastion of conservative values in the Western world. We may in fact be the opposite as abortion is likely to be heavily subsidised if not free and harassing women availing of the services will not be tolerated. Which may very likely mean that the fundamentalist Americans who have been pumping money into maintaining the status quo here will be less invested in fighting an unwinnable fight. Iona have still got a lot of money but they are probably going to see many of their income streams dry up. Wasting money now will only hasten their irrelevancy but they don't seem to be people blessed with a lot of cop on. They couldn't have run a more tone deaf campaign if they had deliberately tried. They are still claiming Maria Steen was the winner of the Claire Byrne debate when it's obvious now that she utterly failed in her actual objective of winning over undecided voters. They are continuing to spend money now as if their best income streams aren't at risk of being discontinued. They might be made up of well educated people but they really aren't very smart and will continue tilting at windmills until they fall over.

In some ways I think their entire raison d'etre was just to get American funding for jobs for themselves.

_Dara_

I’ve been looking at Save the 8th Twitter profiles with interest since the result. Not interacting with them, just looking at them.

One commonality among many of them is an almost prurient tendancy for describing - whether accurately or not - the process of abortion. Really gory posts, almost luxuriating in the details. It’s very odd.

Wrongway1985

_Dara_ wrote: »

I’ve been looking at Save the 8th Twitter profiles with interest since the result. Not interacting with them, just looking at them.

One commonality among many of them is an almost prurient tendancy for describing - whether accurately or not - the process of abortion. Really gory posts, almost luxuriating in the details. It’s very odd.

Of course sure we had people on here and their reps to the media insisting that celebrations after result at Dublin Castle etc were insulting as they were purposely celebrating the murders of thousands...yeah that's what was being celebrated :rolleyes:

I think it was a save the 8th campaigner took to the airwaves who said one of the main factors for the loss of the eighth was because RTE never showed the public an abortion procedure...level headed fella I'm sure!

_Dara_

Did anyone ever see this video Save The 8th released in response to the Together For Yes video featuring celebrities? Embarrassing stuff.

https://twitter.com/Savethe8thInfo/status/997560476614709248?s=20

gctest50

_Dara_ wrote: »

Did anyone ever see this video Save The 8th released in response to the Together For Yes video featuring celebrities? Embarrassing stuff.

https://twitter.com/Savethe8thInfo/status/997560476614709248?s=20

"When further questioned by Insp Ryan, Becky Kealy of Bettyville, Kanturk said she went into a pub in Kanturk at 5pm and left at 1am and had consumed between "six or seven pints of Bulmers." She said she then got a spin to Freemount."

_Dara_

gctest50 wrote: »

lol - yet again ? really ? lol

I don’t follow.