Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Grayson

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

No idea, and as I said "final totals"

Back in 2011 GE the Exit poll showed far smaller return for FF than actually happened, people were ashamed to even tell a pollster they voted FF.

Not saying that is the case here but the final totals will obviously be a truer reflection than any exit poll.

The reason I asked is that the exit poll said that there is a 1.5% margin of error. That means that unless you can show that the constituency poll showed a low amount of yes voters, you can't actually say as all that it will be close there. In fact based on all the evidence we have, it's pretty certain it won't be.

Roanmore

Young girl from Donegal on Sky News who campaigned for No, I listened to her but haven't a clue what she was saying, made no sense at all (not talking about her accent).

ebbsy

Sofiztikated wrote: »

What paragon of virtue will you be moving to?

He's moving to Canada.

Taytoland

RobertKK wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Do the No side have the political numbers to block it in the Dail? If you lose you lose. Should just accept it. A bit like the remainers in the UK over Brexit who are still whining and crying about it two years later. Or move to NI which won't be getting rid of it's abortion laws anytime soon.

There won't be any problems for the legislation in my opinion. SF will have an EGM to change their position to the government legislation.

Interesting times for Catholic conservatism. The Catholic church is on the back foot in Ireland now and I find myself a bit sad about that oddly enough.

Nettle Soup

Renua is gone now. It will simply disappear. Where is Lucinda?

Bannasidhe

suicide_circus wrote: »

But why should he pay maintenance for a child he wanted legally aborted? He should be able to have a say over his reproductive responsibility like women will now have.

Did you read what I said?

I said IF he rocks up years later having decided he wants to daddy after all having declined to daddy in the beginning then he should backdate the maintenance he didn't pay during his not-daddying period.
Esstentially if he doesn't want to daddy a baby or toddler but quite fancies having a daddy weekend kick about with a 12 year old then he must recognise that there are back payments due for the previous years as he merely postponed daddying.

If he fecks off for ever then let him go. Nobody needs a 'parent' who doesn't want to be a parent and is only there due to coercion.

That's my opinion anyway.

Keep in mind it is often the DSP who are interested in men stumping up cash so they don't have to - lots of women quite willing and able to financially support themselves would be very happy if their 'babydaddy' fecked off. Just like lots of men wish they were allowed a greater chance to be a real father. Not to mention those ex-couples who can't stand the sight of each other but have no choice due to 'sharing' children. Far too often the poor kids get used as pawns in a battle between two adults who are acting like eejits.

Did you not see those posters on lamppost 3 years ago telling us all children need a Mammy and a Daddy???

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes and isn't that why the politicians are in the parliament - by the will of the people, you think people who voted for Ronan Mullin or other pro-life politicians didn't know their position or have expectations of them when it comes to certain votes?

There wasn't too many people voted for Ronan Mullen

Bannasidhe

The_Brood wrote: »

yes, but then it becomes a question of finances.


If the man who is the actual father of the child should have the option of not paying for the child - why would other taxpayers then have to be forced into paying for the child?

Do you think every unmarried mother claims social welfare?

You would be wrong.

Also - Lone Parents is also paid to qualifying fathers.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes and isn't that why the politicians are in the parliament - by the will of the people, you think people who voted for Ronan Mullin or other pro-life politicians didn't know their position or have expectations of them when it comes to certain votes?

We'll know how when we get the rundown of how all NUI graduates voted yesterday. Oh wait, that won't be released. So yes, unless he can show that his constituency voted against repeal all he is doing here is standing against democracy.

Not surprisingly, some pro-lifers heavily support this as they've been so used to having their way in Ireland down through the decades that they are still struggling to get their heads around the fact that the country has passed them by.

BarryD2

captbarnacles wrote: »

I'll go first: we've had enough of you in politics Ronan

Over to University College Cork, they elect him. Wonder what the students there think of him?

suicide_circus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Did you read what I said?

I said IF he rocks up years later having decided he wants to daddy after all having declined to daddy in the beginning then he should backdate the maintenance he didn't pay during his not-daddying period.
Esstentially if he doesn't want to daddy a baby or toddler but quite fancies having a daddy weekend kick about with a 12 year old then he must recognise that there are back payments due for the previous years as he merely postponed daddying.

If he fecks off for ever then let him go. Nobody needs a 'parent' who doesn't want to be a parent and is only there due to coercion.

That's my opinion anyway.

Keep in mind it is often the DSP who are interested in men stumping up cash so they don't have to - lots of women quite willing and able to financially support themselves would be very happy if their 'babydaddy' fecked off. Just like lots of men wish they were allowed a greater chance to be a real father. Not to mention those ex-couples who can't stand the sight of each other but have no choice due to 'sharing' children. Far too often the poor kids get used as pawns in a battle between two adults who are acting like eejits.

Did you not see those posters on lamppost 3 years ago telling us all children need a Mammy and a Daddy???

Oh grand I wasn't too sure from your post.

Absolutely if the chap wants to be in the child's life he should have the right to do so. If he asked for an abortion but the pregnancy goes ahead he should have the right to not be involved in any way.

It's about the right to choose.

Grayson

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

No idea, and as I said "final totals"

Back in 2011 GE the Exit poll showed far smaller return for FF than actually happened, people were ashamed to even tell a pollster they voted FF.

Not saying that is the case here but the final totals will obviously be a truer reflection than any exit poll.

Taytoland wrote: »

Interesting times for Catholic conservatism. The Catholic church is on the back foot in Ireland now and I find myself a bit sad about that oddly enough.

I don't. I grew up in a time when our education on abortion was to have Youth Defence visit the school.

tigger123

It'll be interesting to see if there's any pushback for Ronan at the next Seanad elections.

Necro

tigger123 wrote:

Still can't get over the margins in places like Sligo and Roscommon.

Looking at live tallies for Sligo, only about 6 boxes that I can see (opened so far) voted in favour of No. And only by a small margin.
61% overall is fairly impressive imo

BarryD2

Taytoland wrote: »

Interesting times for Catholic conservatism. The Catholic church is on the back foot in Ireland now and I find myself a bit sad about that oddly enough.

Things don't stay the same forever. If it doesn't keep in tune with the people, there's only one eventual result.

Billy86

Galway East is first in - 60.2% yes, 39.8% no

BarryD2

tigger123 wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see if there's any pushback for Ronan at the next Seanad elections.

Yep, the fact that he gets elected in UCC says something about the older graduates of that university. Think though, that the shock waves of this result will cause a rethink. Reckon he's gone next time.

Bannasidhe

suicide_circus wrote: »

Oh grand I wasn't too sure from your post.

Absolutely if the chap wants to be in the child's life he should have the right to do so. If he asked for an abortion but the pregnancy goes ahead he should have the right to not be involved in any way.

It's about the right to choose.

I agree.

Easily done too.

Name on Birth Cert/Register = Daddy.
In the case of unmarried father's he currently has to agree and be present at registration. They choose to put their name down already so let that choice have a legal standing.

Shurimgreat

Sheeps wrote: »

The RTE exit poll that says 48% of voters overall were against abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.

Strange one that alright.

If someone had a good understanding of the implications of a yes vote they would know the proposed legislation is ready to go and will be enacted in the next few months including the part about unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.
So its hard to understand how close to 20% voted in favour of something they are actually against. It seems they didn't fully understand what they were voting for.

But the result is what it is at this stage and there's little that can be done. I'm personally happy with how I voted. My conscience is clear.

F34

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The Healy Rae's and McGraths of this world are very much in touch with their electorate, general elections will tell you that.

The Healy Rae’s yes McGrath is thankfully is getting close to being out on his arse.

Cina

tigger123 wrote: »

Still can't get over the margins in places like Sligo and Roscommon.

Oi, don't bundle my hometown in with Roscommon, we voted yes to SSM

I haven't been home much lately but whenever I did, the feeling I got from the older generation I spoke to, was that unlike SSM, this directly impacted them through their daughters or daughter in laws or grand-daughters and thus were easily swayed to yes by them. The only ones I've really heard of voting no are the hardcore religious among them.

spookwoman

Ceremony at the Dr. Noel Browne monument Bath Street waterford at 4pm Red roses will be laid in recognition of his work in womens health. Bring a red rose if attending

Zubeneschamali

RobertKK wrote: »

He can still represent No voters by voting against legislation if he wants which is democracy.

I am an NUI graduate, but I never looked up how to vote for the Senate.

Until now.

I will be making sure I have a vote next time simply and solely to vote for everyone on the ballot except that bollox.

RobertKK

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Said the bitterly disappointed Robert.

I am fine, I voted with my conscience and I never worry about a result once I am happy with my own decision, I only believe in dwelling on things one can change and not things one can't change.
I am watching a lot of sport today rather than referendum coverage - the Giro, F1, the football later so I have moved on.

There is the serenity prayer which is sensible:
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.
Courage to change the things I can.
and the wisdom to know the difference.

I expected Yes to win, life is too short to let things that one can't change stress one. I know some people wants me to dwell on things, be miserable and bitter and that is why people are having pops at me here today.
But what is done is done and I am untroubled with what I have done, I was disappointed last night but I am fine today.

Billy86

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Strange one that alright.

If someone had a good understanding of the implications of a yes vote they would know the proposed legislation is ready to go and will be enacted in the next few months including the part about unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.
So its hard to understand how close to 20% voted in favour of something they are actually against. It seems they didn't fully understand what they were voting for.

Meanwhile, 40% of people who voted NO were in favour of abortion for rape or FFA. They also voted in favour of something they were against by voting to retain the 8th.

Bannasidhe

BarryD2 wrote: »

Yep, the fact that he gets elected in UCC says something about the older graduates of that university. Think though, that the shock waves of this result will cause a rethink. Reckon he's gone next time.

I most certainly never voted for that odious toad! :mad:

I reckon it says more about the fact that most graduates don't bother their holes registering to vote in Seanad elections tbh.

Cina

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Strange one that alright.

If someone had a good understanding of the implications of a yes vote they would know the proposed legislation is ready to go and will be enacted in the next few months including the part about unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.
So its hard to understand how close to 20% voted in favour of something they are actually against. It seems they didn't fully understand what they were voting for.

it's not strange at all. Most of them obviously saw that the other benefits to repealing (cases of rape, ill health, risk to life) far outweighed their issues with abortion on demand.

It is literally a life or death situation for some women, and thankfully, they chose life.

Loafing Oaf

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Strange one that alright.

If someone had a good understanding of the implications of a yes vote they would know the proposed legislation is ready to go and will be enacted in the next few months including the part about unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.
So its hard to understand how close to 20% voted in favour of something they are actually against. It seems they didn't fully understand what they were voting for.

Or they voted yes as the lesser of two evils...

Harry Palmr

https://twitter.com/BarryLenihan/status/1000345742387621894

Taytoland

Grayson wrote: »

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

No idea, and as I said "final totals"

Back in 2011 GE the Exit poll showed far smaller return for FF than actually happened, people were ashamed to even tell a pollster they voted FF.

Not saying that is the case here but the final totals will obviously be a truer reflection than any exit poll.

Taytoland wrote: »

Interesting times for Catholic conservatism. The Catholic church is on the back foot in Ireland now and I find myself a bit sad about that oddly enough.

I don't. I grew up in a time when our education on abortion was to have Youth Defence visit the school.

The society is more atheistic now which means religion is out the door but also morality has less meaning as it's all irrelevant because you have no repercussions. In 100-150 years Christianity will be like a tiny minority grouping like in the days of the Roman Empire.