So Michael D IS running again!

Annasopra

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Something I feel people may be missing Re: 'Casey vs. The Political Establishment'

Most of the candidates this year kept using so-called 'disadvantaged' groups as their platform for how they'd improve Ireland through becoming President, be they people suffering from mental illness, the homeless, or suffering from other health problems.

But at a time when we're surrounded by 'talk' which proclaims to improve the standing of many 'marginalised' groups including those mentioned, yet with markedly fewer results to point to, perhaps it was that jaded message that didn't resonate with the electorate? Or dare I say a message that is quickly becoming synonymous with political buzzword culture where people say them without ever meaning a whole lot?

Then we have Casey who comes along and simply by speaking his mind, rightly or wrongly, inherently comes across as genuine in comparison and so wins the vote of many.

For instance, we've been hearing from politicians about the homeless crisis promising they're putting measures in place to fix it for so long that one can't help but be a little skeptical now every time someone else comes along now and says they're going to be the one to fix things?

Just a thought. Sometimes there's no needs to start appraising and comparing the actions of foes when it's the message to begin with that's at fault.

But yet 77% of those who voted didnt give Casey their number so clearly these messages did resonate!

splinter65

never_mind wrote: »

Yeah cause PC isn’t? Difference is is that you can be privileged and be aware of it .MDH knows he is. PC is a mess and so is any man (it’s all men tbf) who is going through this weird insecure masculine phase. Man up and jog on.

How has MDH or any white man got a privilege over you?What privileges in particular does my husband enjoy that are denied to you?

ThunbergsAreGo

Will we get a detailed breakdown on what each candidate spent their money on?

Jackman25

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, I don't believe that. If I believed that, I'd have said it.

You appear to have carefully avoided understanding my point, so I'll make it again: you claimed that people didn't vote for Casey, but for his message.

If you write "1" beside a candidate's name and then claim that you didn't vote for him, you're lying to yourself. You can spin all the sophistry you want to justify doing so, but that doesn't change the facts.

I really hate protest votes. If you want to protest, protest. If you want to vote, vote.

Noithing wrong with a protest vote once you are prepared to own the outcome. Had Casey ended up being President, I would still have been happy with my vote for him.
If you use something like the Brexit referendum as a protest then unless you actually do want to leave the EU, it is moronic.

Alan_P

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, I don't believe that. If I believed that, I'd have said it.

You appear to have carefully avoided understanding my point, so I'll make it again: you claimed that people didn't vote for Casey, but for his message.

If you write "1" beside a candidate's name and then claim that you didn't vote for him, you're lying to yourself. You can spin all the sophistry you want to justify doing so, but that doesn't change the facts.

I really hate protest votes. If you want to protest, protest. If you want to vote, vote.

If you vote, vote as you wish your society to continue. We are,by all elections, a moderate center right country, with a strong compassionate urge and a special awareness of the importance of housing. That's a reasonable country to live in :- the current government is trying to sort out housing, which will take 5 years at least. We are also socially liberal (gay marriage,abortion which should never have been in the Constitution in the first place).



I like that country, I am happy to live in it. We should work around a moderate mean.

Hurrache

never_mind wrote: »

What I love is that MDH got double the votes PC got in one of the lowest turnouts in history. Message to all you white privileged dudes: you won’t penetrate ireland, were a sound nation so F off with your populist faux victimised discourse.

What on earth does this mean? White privileged dudes?!?!

splinter65

Hurrache wrote: »

What on earth does this mean? White privileged dudes?!?!

It’s hilarious really, but kinda sad in alot of ways. I don’t think either of us will get a response though.

Corb_lund

never_mind wrote: »

What I love is that MDH got double the votes PC got in one of the lowest turnouts in history. Message to all you white privileged dudes: you won’t penetrate ireland, were a sound nation so F off with your populist faux victimised discourse.

Hahaha.

And here it comes to Ireland.

Let me guess...

#Refugees welcome
#islam is great
#but woman also great, no contradiction honest
#no to racism
#end white men

Rhineshark

Corb_lund wrote: »

Hahaha.

And here it comes to Ireland.

Let me guess...

#Refugees welcome
#islam is great
#but woman also great, no contradiction honest
#no to racism
#end white men

Ah, if we're going for the argument ad absurdum, I can only assume your policies are

#End refugees
#Islam is evil
#Women are destroying men's rights
#imnotracistbut
#White Power


See how easy lazy reductionism is. Requires no thought whatsoever and scary nuance can be ignored.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Stay on topic please and dial back on the privilege stuff.

Water John

Cripes, PC says he's joining FF. I have 2 questions for him. When did he apply? Have FF accepted his membership application?
Unless both of those things have happened already, he's a twat.

Rhineshark

Water John wrote: »

Cripes, PC says he's joining FF. I have 2 questions for him. When did he apply? Have FF accepted his membership application?
Unless both of those things have happened already, he's a twat.

Micheál Martin has already dumped a bucket of cold water on that idea apparently!

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/micheál-martin-pours-cold-water-on-casey-s-plan-to-join-fianna-fáil-1.3678238?mode=amp

From the same article:
"Mr Casey says there is no longer any need for him to publish his tax returns as the presidential election is over."

Snigger. All those surprised form an orderly dot.

Loafing Oaf

Water John wrote: »

Cripes, PC says he's joining FF. I have 2 questions for him. When did he apply? Have FF accepted his membership application?
Unless both of those things have happened already, he's a twat.

With a view to becoming taoiseach apparently. So I guess Martin will be handing over the reins any day now...

Water John

Niall Collins also said he could, feck off, or words to that effect. Some muppet with a brainfart.

Ashleigh1986

Anyone that sees caseys vote other than a "protest vote " hasn't a clue .
Over 2 weeks ago people hadn't a clue who he was other than a " dragon " .
He was stuck on 1 - 2% and needed a huge reaction to get his election spend back.
He and his advisors would have well aware of the " traveller situation in tipp" .
He was obviously advised to comment on it .
The other candidates didn't want to go there .
Personally I wasn't impressed of casey .
But what he has done is got the main parties thinking.
Middle Ireland is well fed up at carrying layabouts .

pixelburp

The 'protest vote' mentality only makes sense in an election where there's a clear government slant or investment in the outcome of decision X. Lisbon 1 seems the most obvious example there; usually helps too when said government is an unpopular one (no polling demonstrates this). And while the glib may sneer at Higgins as being the 'establishment' candidate, the reality is there was nothing on the line, while the sitting President was self-evidently a well loved public figure.

In fact a large percentage of this thread, up until about 2 weeks ago, consisted of chatter around the necessity, validity and purpose of both this election & the President in the first place. We all thought Higgins would coast by on goodwill alone - and the votes demonstrate that. Yet one Casey brain-fart later, and suddenly there are insistences of protest, projecting biases and hopes onto a candidate who was hitherto a bit of a spoofer and more than a little ignorant of Irish affairs. There's a fair suggestion he has ignited a conversation about travellers - albeit accidentally IMO - but I've seen no evidence of a broad maturity in that debate - and I would blame Casey for lacking the nous to steer the debate. 'Speaking your mind' is all well and good, but it helps to have substance behind the waffle.

Beechwoodspark

seamus wrote: »

Anecdotally, nobody I know from any background has said they're giving Casey their number one, except in jest.

The only people I see claiming they will are randomers online.

No shame in admitting you got it wrong in fairness

Adamcp898

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But yet 77% of those who voted didnt give Casey their number so clearly these messages did resonate!

When the incumbent makes up by far and away most of that 77%, who's message was......well nothing more than 'I'm the only competent person running here, lads', can it clearly mean that?

When you have a campaign that was 90% made-up of people saying nothing, then I'd wager that anyone without a passing interest in politics, which is probably a much larger % of the electorate than we'd care to admit, wouldn't have known much about any of the candidates or why they wanted to be president at all.

In an environment like that, when someone comes along and says something even only mildly topical, no matter how poorly communicated or fleshed out it may be they're going to see a bump. There's a vast portion of the electorate for who Peter Casey's comments about Travelers were probably either the first thing about the Presidential race that managed to grab their attention or were the first thing about the campaign that they found even slightly related to them.

So back to my original point, perhaps PC's rise doesn't need to be combed over to unearth some possible meaning about the political forecast in Ireland, rather it may have just been symptomatic of an entirely uninteresting and vague campaign ran by the other candidates.

CrabRevolution

I think a good bit of the Casey vote was the "anyone but Michael D" crowd. The same ones who were very active a few months ago on this thread saying they hated Michael D and that everyone they knew hated him too. The best they could come up with to slate him was this mythical solemn oath he swore to only serve one term.

These same people went a bit quiet when the opinion polls started coming out showing that a decisive majority wanted Michael D for a second term. The debates then started, and the same anti-Michael D crowd started the easily seen through "well looking at it objectively, MDH was the worst performer in that debate" shtick.The problem was that there was no standout candidate for them to vote for, all they knew was they didn't want Michael D. Things were looking grim.

Then out of nowhere Casey came out with his welfare/traveller comments, and the anti-Michael Ds saw their chance to rally around one candidate. The same stock phrases were dusted off of and suddenly "everyone I know, and their dog is voting for Casey". (and lo and behold, all the people claiming to have more than one vote say they are using them all for Casey :rolleyes:).

Not to say that was all that drew people to Casey, but it was a good part of it.

Alan_P

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I think a good bit of the Casey vote was the "anyone but Michael D" crowd. The same ones who were very active a few months ago on this thread saying they hated Michael D and that everyone they knew hated him too. The best they could come up with to slate him was this mythical solemn oath he swore to only serve one term.

These same people went a bit quiet when the opinion polls started coming out showing that a decisive majority wanted Michael D for a second term. The debates then started, and the same anti-Michael D crowd started the easily seen through "well looking at it objectively, MDH was the worst performer in that debate" shtick.The problem was that there was no standout candidate for them to vote for, all they knew was they didn't want Michael D. Things were looking grim.

Then out of nowhere Casey came out with his welfare/traveller comments, and the anti-Michael Ds saw their chance to rally around one candidate. The same stock phrases were dusted off of and suddenly "everyone I know, and their dog is voting for Casey". (and lo and behold, all the people claiming to have more than one vote say they are using them all for Casey :rolleyes:).

Not to say that was all that drew people to Casey, but it was a good part of it.

I agree. He was the MDH haters candidate,and demonstrates nothing about Irish politics.

Hurrache

Alan_P wrote: »

I agree. He was the MDH haters candidate,and demonstrates nothing about Irish politics.

But you'll be wrong. There were many MDH votes with Casey as second preference, and vice versa.

humberklog

Anyone I know who voted Casey (5 people) were all going to vote MDH. Me included.

Water John

I wouldn't use my vote this time as a protest vote. The people who voted for PC are probably not rasict but many rural people are pissed off at how a large % of the TC behave.
Just look at how the towns of Buttavent and Dunmanway have to shut down for a few days each summer.
Not all rural trouble comes from TC by any means but my extended family has had plenty run ins over the last 60 years.

Loafing Oaf

Water John wrote: »

I wouldn't use my vote this time as a protest vote. The people who voted for PC are probably not rasict

But definitely non-PC:P

Try_harder

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

No shame in admitting you got it wrong in fairness

Maybe she moves in different circles to you

MouseTail

Hurrache wrote: »

But you'll be wrong. There were many MDH votes with Casey as second preference, and vice versa.

Agree, anyone who was at the Count Centres will tell you that Casey was transfer friendly. Traditional protest votes tend not to be, there would just be one mark on the paper. Dismissing this as a protest vote or an anti incumbant vote is not the true picture.

Tell me how

MouseTail wrote: »

Agree, anyone who was at the Count Centres will tell you that Casey was transfer friendly. Traditional protest votes tend not to be, there would just be one mark on the paper. Dismissing this as a protest vote or an anti incumbant vote is not the true picture.

If it wasn't a protest vote, are you suggesting that 23% of the country wanted Peter Casey to be elected president?

That's even more scary. In what way did he even for a second show himself to be a suitable candidate for that office?

MouseTail

Tell me how wrote: »

If it wasn't a protest vote, are you suggesting that 23% of the country wanted Peter Casey to be elected president?

That's even more scary. In what way did he even for a second show himself to be a suitable candidate for that office?

At least 23%. Many more by their transfers deemed him acceptable even if not their first choice. Yes, it is scary, it is hard for traditional centrist parties to fight that sort of divisive populist campaigning which appeals to the left and right.

Edward M

Tell me how wrote: »

If it wasn't a protest vote, are you suggesting that 23% of the country wanted Peter Casey to be elected president?

That's even more scary. In what way did he even for a second show himself to be a suitable candidate for that office?

For me he didn't. I agree with his comments though re travellers and welfare.
But I didn't vote for him as my number 1, or Higgins either for that matter.
His comments and his rising of the debate he started is a useful and incitful insight into how feelings are about travellers.
They aren't trusted in rural and county towns or communities, no pc brigade shouting about traveller rights will change that either.
Casey wouldn't have been a good president imo, but the fact that Higgins is seen as a good representative of ordinary Irish citizens is a joke too, he has never been a working class represent tative imo, rather a projective of a arty farty type of Ireland that we like to project to our foreign counterparts, not a reflection of the real Ireland at all.

Tell me how

MouseTail wrote: »

At least 23%. Many more by their transfers deemed him acceptable even if not their first choice. Yes, it is scary, it is hard for traditional centrist parties to fight that sort of divisive populist campaigning which appeals to the left and right.

So you are suggesting that he appealed to people who wanted him to be President?
If so, can you say specifically what you think it was about him that appealed to people in this way?

The view I have seen of his voters explaining why they voted for him is exclusively one of the following.

He calls it as he sees it.
It's about time someone said something about the travellers.
F you Leo
F you media

But none along the lines that he would represent the country well or would be an improvement on the incumbent. That to me is a protest vote.