nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

So Michael D IS running again!

realdanbreen

So when Michael D was campaigning for president and said it would be a one off term he was lying?
Many voted for him because he was only going for one term and wasn't trying to hog the job for 14 years.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

jmcc

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've repeated this accusation several times now, but I've yet to see you offer any evidence that he knew it to be untrue when he said it (the definition of a lie).

One term only.

Regards...jmcc

Alf Veedersane

Bradlin wrote: »

Every time I look at Michael D and every time he opens his mouth, I say to myself: 'Is that really the best we, as a country, can elect as President of the country?'

I'm embarrassed to have him as a President.

It's quite likely many of the Irish electorate will choose to ignore his campaign pledge 7 years ago that he would only stay for one term and upon which he has no reneged. Politicians renege on promises all the time, but it should be held against them. Unfortunately, not in Ireland.

Come on, people - we're better than this slop.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but who, of the candidates, are the candidates we'd be proud of?

TheRiverman

I posted about this previously and I am open to correction,but I think Micheal D said before the last election that it would depend on his health and he would be seventy seven years old when he would have to consider going for a second term.He is still in good health.

OwlsZat

realdanbreen wrote: »

So when Michael D was campaigning for president and said it would be a one off term he was lying?
Many voted for him because he was only going for one term and wasn't trying to hog the job for 14 years.

Cost the taxpayer a fortune in the RTE backed smear campaign and is living a lie. Gas under thay pretence that he met the pope today too. Wonder if he recieved confession!

oscarBravo

jmcc wrote: »

He's a liar. He lied to get elected.

You've repeated this accusation several times now, but I've yet to see you offer any evidence that he knew it to be untrue when he said it (the definition of a lie).

jmcc

pixelburp wrote: »

The polls I supplied came via Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI, Ámarach Research / Claire Byrne Live, and Ireland Thinks/ Irish Daily Mail - your personal distaste for TheJournal doesn't allow to simply sniff at polls taken via 3 pretty credible sources (and yes, the Claire Byrne one was in conjunction with that outlet).

It does when the results of those polls are no longer valid. An opinion poll is simply a snapshot of opinion at that time. This is what a lot of people fail to understand. The 2017 polls were from approximately a year ago. The May 2018 poll was from when the "My Little Crony" strategy from FF/FG was being pushed to ensure that there would be no election and there were no candidates at that stage.

Point being, all the polls related to Higgins running for a second term - the time they were taken is immaterial given this is precisely the topic at hand: you asked for poll data demonstrating that Higgins was popular and would probably be successful in running another term - you received said proof.

You haven't provided any proof. You've merely cobbled together some polls from a year ago and one from about three months ago when there were no candidates. As the timing of opinion polls gets closer to that of the election, there are shifts in opinion and some voting patterns will crystalise. An opinion poll where there are no other candidates for a position is quite useless in that respect.

If you have more recent poll data that contradicts this suggestion that Higgins is popular, and would win a second term

I don't. But the Irish Examiner mentioned private polling that indicated that Higgins may not be as likely to win a second term as people think.

Otherwise TBH it's a bit rich to dismiss 3 separate polls just because you don't like what they say, giving some whataboutery over their age.

They don't represent current opinion. People change their opinion and the biggest shift will come in the next few weeks if Gallagher decides to enter the race and SF announces their candidate. Both of those events have the potentially destroy Higgins' support and canvassing infrastructure. Gallagher can potentially draw support from FF leaning supporters and they are more likely to canvass for him rather than than Higgins. FF is no longer the toxic pariah it was in 2011 and Labour is now on 3% with a seriously damaged local infrastructure since the Local Election disaster of 2014. (It lost 81 seats and only held 51). FGers may not be so likely to canvass for Higgins either. The big unknown is SF and its candidate. SF is marketing itself as the new "Left". It has also taken a lot of the historically Labour vote. It has also been getting in on the whole SJW/virtue signalling market and taking away some of the SJW vote that had been Labour's "new thing" for a few years. A strong SF candidate is likely to split the Left/SJW vote upon which Higgins depends.

Hearsay over hotel rooms or snarky asides about 'TheChurnal' doesn't really counter the stats on show.

Your "stats" are out of date and apply to a time a year ago and three months ago when there were no other candidates in the race and the idea of a coronation for Higgins by FF/FG in order to save money was being pushed in the media.

The statistical data so far shows that Higgins will probably win a second term, and retains a broad popularity with the electorate.

There is no current statistical data publically available that indicates that Higgins is as popular as you think or will win.

Regards...jmcc

pixelburp

jmcc wrote: »

From approximately a year ago (September 2017), mainly. There were no candidates then. As for The Churnal, it is hardly a credible poll.

The polls I supplied came via Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI, Ámarach Research / Claire Byrne Live, and Ireland Thinks/ Irish Daily Mail - your personal distaste for TheJournal doesn't allow to simply sniff at polls taken via 3 pretty credible sources (and yes, the Claire Byrne one was in conjunction with that outlet).

Point being, all the polls related to Higgins running for a second term - the time they were taken is immaterial given this is precisely the topic at hand: you asked for poll data demonstrating that Higgins was popular and would probably be successful in running another term - you received said proof.

If you have more recent poll data that contradicts this suggestion that Higgins is popular, and would win a second term - please provide it

Otherwise TBH it's a bit rich to dismiss 3 separate polls just because you don't like what they say, giving some whataboutery over their age. Hearsay over hotel rooms or snarky asides about 'TheChurnal' doesn't really counter the stats on show.

The statistical data so far shows that Higgins will probably win a second term, and retains a broad popularity with the electorate.

There's still plenty of time to pass until election day, not least a SF to actually manifest, but for now Higgins would win a second term. And given so far the only candidates to throw their hat in the ring have been spectacular only in being unknown or uninspiring, it's scarcely a stretch to suggest the polls are unlikely to waver.

jmcc

batgoat wrote: »

Yep, Gemma has existing animosity towards Kitty Holland as well.... But in general, people don't like O'Doherty for legitimate reasons. Eg treatment of families of victims including the Molloy and Boyle family. Hpv conspiracies and Madeleine McCann conspiracies then threatening to sue anyone who brings this stuff up. That's not presidential material unless you want Donald Trump...

It doesn't seem that way. It seems like a gang of media types decided to hit her on Twitter.

I'm finding it funny that you classify highlighting views as smears meanwhile your criticisms of Michael D are pretty uninteresting....

You are entitled to your views as you are to support your candidate, Higgins. I just seem to have a different view than you as to how the media works.

The DFA choosing an expensive hotel isn't surprising.

So a 3K a night hotel room for Higgins while kids are homeless and sleeping on chairs in Garda stations doesn't bother you? Are you a Labour supporter, the party where six out of seven TDs are millionaires?

He changed his mind about doing a second term. Scandalous! :P

He's a liar. He lied to get elected. Why do you accept being lied to? (See how it works.)

Regards...jmcc

jmcc

AGC wrote: »

What has his health got to do with anything? There has been absolutely no indication of any ill health, has he ever missed an engagement on the grounds of poor health?

Statistically, he may die in office. He is going to be on TV alongside younger candidates. Any question about his health, even that shaking hand that his people and RTE worked so hard to hide in the last election, is going to be a problem if it is covered. The cameras will highlight any flaws and even if people consciously ignore these flaws (Higgins/Labour supporters), ordinary people may not. This is why RTE worked so hard to avoid covering Higgins hobbling around in the last election and relied mainly on static shots of Higgins sitting or standing.

Regards...jmcc

Bradlin

Every time I look at Michael D and every time he opens his mouth, I say to myself: 'Is that really the best we, as a country, can elect as President of the country?'

I'm embarrassed to have him as a President.

It's quite likely many of the Irish electorate will choose to ignore his campaign pledge 7 years ago that he would only stay for one term and upon which he has no reneged. Politicians renege on promises all the time, but it should be held against them. Unfortunately, not in Ireland.

Come on, people - we're better than this slop.

batgoat

jmcc wrote: »

Go back a few days and look at the not so great and never any good rounding on her over her comments about the Irish Times property porn addiction at some Summer School. One of the Irish Times heads took it very personally and went off the deep end. Some of her tweets have now been deleted.

Regards...jmcc

Yep, Gemma has existing animosity towards Kitty Holland as well.... But in general, people don't like O'Doherty for legitimate reasons. Eg treatment of families of victims including the Molloy and Boyle family. Hpv conspiracies and Madeleine McCann conspiracies then threatening to sue anyone who brings this stuff up. That's not presidential material unless you want Donald Trump...

I'm finding it funny that you classify highlighting views as smears meanwhile your criticisms of Michael D are pretty uninteresting.... The DFA choosing an expensive hotel isn't surprising. He changed his mind about doing a second term. Scandalous! :P

jmcc

batgoat wrote: »

While I agree that our presidential campaigns get dirty, Gemma O'Doherty's own tweets and behaviour are being used in a legitimate fashion. Smear implies it's just dirt, in this case it's her every day public behaviour.

Go back a few days and look at the not so great and never any good rounding on her over her comments about the Irish Times property porn addiction at some Summer School. One of the Irish Times heads took it very personally and went off the deep end. Some of her tweets have now been deleted.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc

blanch152 wrote: »

A smear campaign normally involves a false allegation.

A political smear works better if it has an element of truth. It is packaged so that it is detrimental to the target's campaign. The aim is not to inform the public but rather to ensure that people won't vote for the candidate.

There is nothing false about the allegation that Higgins lied.

The Higgins/Labourite supporters are trying to present it as simply Higgins changing his mind rather than a gombeen politician who lied to the Irish people to get elected.

Regards...jmcc

batgoat

jmcc wrote: »

Haven't been paying attention to the smear campaign running against Gemma O'Doherty on Twitter? Norris, in the last election, got hit twice with a smear campaign to take him out of the race.

Regards...jmcc

While I agree that our presidential campaigns get dirty, Gemma O'Doherty's own tweets and behaviour are being used in a legitimate fashion. Smear implies it's just dirt, in this case it's her every day public behaviour.

jmcc

pixelburp wrote: »

There have been a few polls, but obviously a ceremonial position like the Irish Presidency doesn't enjoy the same kind of continuous polling the US equivalent has (for example).

From approximately a year ago (September 2017), mainly. There were no candidates then. As for The Churnal, it is hardly a credible poll.

And just a passing glance at informal polls on outlets such as on TheJournal, or indeed search across Social Media and you see a resting, positive reception towards the man.

See above. There's a kind of filter bubble effect with Social Media, especially Twitter in that many of those supporting Higgins tend to be a small self-referential set that would be part of the same social network.

The campaigns haven't started formally but the reality is, the stats demonstrate the population simply doesn't care as strongly about Higgin's so-called "lying" as you or others insist.

Your "stats" don't demonstrate anything. They are from a year ago or prior to candidate announcing.

Maybe that'll change - but TBH that would probably require the kind of smear campaign that doesn't really occur in Irish politics (and would hope doesn't start this year)

Haven't been paying attention to the smear campaign running against Gemma O'Doherty on Twitter? Norris, in the last election, got hit twice with a smear campaign to take him out of the race.

Regards...jmcc

blanch152

pixelburp wrote: »

The coming campaign will enlighten as to whether the broader public agree or indeed care that Higgins "lied". One of the quoted polls spoke that only 48% were aware of Higgins' original decision of a single term. Time will tell. Beccause it should be clear enough from the thread alone that not everyone is seeing this as a bald faced lie.

Oh, I have no doubt that the majority of the population don't care that Higgins lied. However, that still doesn't make it a smear campaign to point out his lie.

Jim2007

blanch152 wrote: »

There is nothing false about the allegation that Higgins lied.

I expect the majority of voters will take it for what it is - the man changed his mind. We all do it, it is something we can associate with. You may believe otherwise but I expect you’ll find you make a very small minority in the end.

Water John

Not to derail but Dev could not prevent the civil war. He had no grip on the extremists. Like Pence cannot stop Trump.
Things are more nuanced than binary.

pixelburp

blanch152 wrote: »

A smear campaign normally involves a false allegation.

There is nothing false about the allegation that Higgins lied.

The coming campaign will enlighten as to whether the broader public agree or indeed care that Higgins "lied". One of the quoted polls spoke that only 48% were aware of Higgins' original decision of a single term. Time will tell. Beccause it should be clear enough from the thread alone that not everyone is seeing this as a bald faced lie.

blanch152

pixelburp wrote: »

There have been a few polls, but obviously a ceremonial position like the Irish Presidency doesn't enjoy the same kind of continuous polling the US equivalent has (for example).

So, just a cursory search reveals a few: here's one polling showing an approx. 60% support for another term:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/majority-supports-second-term-for-president-higgins-1.3500531

Another poll from Claire Byrne suggest the population aren't that bothered about his age:

http://www.thejournal.ie/michael-d-higgins-age-no-concern-3615703-Sep2017/

While another points to over 3/4 saying they wanted Higgins to run for another term:

http://www.thejournal.ie/michael-d-president-poll-3614363-Sep2017/

And just a passing glance at informal polls on outlets such as on TheJournal, or indeed search across Social Media and you see a resting, positive reception towards the man.

The campaigns haven't started formally but the reality is, the stats demonstrate the population simply doesn't care as strongly about Higgin's so-called "lying" as you or others insist. Maybe that'll change - but TBH that would probably require the kind of smear campaign that doesn't really occur in Irish politics (and would hope doesn't start this year)

A smear campaign normally involves a false allegation.

There is nothing false about the allegation that Higgins lied.

Jim2007

VinLieger wrote: »

The general irish public dont care enough about presidential elections for there to be a sympathy vote for Gallagher due to 2011.

On the contrary, the voters know enough about the significant role the president plays in constitutional matters, to reject the idea of reducing the age limit as expressed in the rejection of the constitutional amendment.

pixelburp

jmcc wrote: »

What polls?

Regards...jmcc

There have been a few polls, but obviously a ceremonial position like the Irish Presidency doesn't enjoy the same kind of continuous polling the US equivalent has (for example).

So, just a cursory search reveals a few: here's one polling showing an approx. 60% support for another term:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/majority-supports-second-term-for-president-higgins-1.3500531

Another poll from Claire Byrne suggest the population aren't that bothered about his age:

http://www.thejournal.ie/michael-d-higgins-age-no-concern-3615703-Sep2017/

While another points to over 3/4 saying they wanted Higgins to run for another term:

http://www.thejournal.ie/michael-d-president-poll-3614363-Sep2017/

And just a passing glance at informal polls on outlets such as on TheJournal, or indeed search across Social Media and you see a resting, positive reception towards the man.

The campaigns haven't started formally but the reality is, the stats demonstrate the population simply doesn't care as strongly about Higgin's so-called "lying" as you or others insist. Maybe that'll change - but TBH that would probably require the kind of smear campaign that doesn't really occur in Irish politics (and would hope doesn't start this year)

Capt'n Midnight

jmcc wrote: »

DeValera has been dead for over forty years. People still remember him and debate his contributions to the Irish state. He fought for Irish freedom too.

Dev could have prevented the civil war that set our country back for a long time.

Capt'n Midnight

jmcc wrote: »

Higgins lied. It is that simple.

Regards...jmcc

President Trump has made 4,229 false or misleading claims in 558 days

Also Trump changes his mind daily and has made frequent U-turns, at this stage it's hard to know if he has any principles apart from pushing buttons that affect the market. TBH I'd be surprised if some people aren't making huge money on insider information.

jm08

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

What would exactly have been so bad about him. Relatively young successful business, recently married and about to start a family. I think he would have represented us well abroad.

People go on as if he was a member of the Mafia. He broke no law, delivering donations from a dinner dance on behalf of a political party is not a crime.

The Prime Time debacle was a clear stitch up. RTE ended up having to fork out substantial damages to him.

Relatively young at 56! The problem with him was that he was flogging 5K tickets to 'businessmen' to a meet and greet dinner with Brian Cowen (who was then either Taoiseach or Minister for Finance) and collecting the money for Fianna Fail (which he had distanced himself from). The really worrying thing was that he didn't seem to think there was anything wrong about that.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

"Remember that bullet we dodged the last time, the FF bagman? Well now he's back!!!"

Yeah can see that going down well

Oh and Labour's demise at the last election was a surprise to no-one. All down to Gilmore's arrogance and hubris in 2011.

What would exactly have been so bad about him. Relatively young successful business, recently married and about to start a family. I think he would have represented us well abroad.

People go on as if he was a member of the Mafia. He broke no law, delivering donations from a dinner dance on behalf of a political party is not a crime.

The Prime Time debacle was a clear stitch up. RTE ended up having to fork out substantial damages to him.

yrreg0850

[QUOTE I mean honestly I'm not sure what people exactly WANT from a President - it's a ceremonial role to fly around the world and make happy diplomacy [/QUOTE]

Do we not have "Government in Exile" that does that every March ?

Hotblack Desiato

"Remember that bullet we dodged the last time, the FF bagman? Well now he's back!!!"

Yeah can see that going down well

Oh and Labour's demise at the last election was a surprise to no-one. All down to Gilmore's arrogance and hubris in 2011.

jm08

jmcc wrote: »

It would not. Higgins lied to the Irish people to get elected. And now he wants to keep his snout in the trough for another seven years. Without RTE effectively rigging the election with that fake tweet, Higgins would probably not have won. RTE will have to do everything above board this time around. The media still seems to consider Higgins as "their" president. The problem for Higgins and those support him is that people are a lot more cynical about the media these days. Some room temperature IQed churnalist says Higgins is in full health? People will want to see the medical reports.

Regards...jmcc

I don't think there were concerns about his age - more about his fitness. Michael D. was limping around the place and didn't look fit enough to be up to the job. Once he had his hip/knee or whatever sorted, he was hopping around the place and certainly looks fitter now than he did during the last presidential election.

Oh, and the tweet wasn't the reason Gallagher didn't get elected. I don't recall him denying that the cheque he collected for 5K for Fianna Fail didn't happen. That is a problem.

AGC

jmcc wrote: »

It would not. Higgins lied to the Irish people to get elected. And now he wants to keep his snout in the trough for another seven years. Without RTE effectively rigging the election with that fake tweet, Higgins would probably not have won. RTE will have to do everything above board this time around. The media still seems to consider Higgins as "their" president. The problem for Higgins and those support him is that people are a lot more cynical about the media these days. Some room temperature IQed churnalist says Higgins is in full health? People will want to see the medical reports.

Regards...jmcc

What has his health got to do with anything? There has been absolutely no indication of any ill health, has he ever missed an engagement on the grounds of poor health?