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

Alf Veedersane

jmcc wrote: »

The use of the fake tweet by RTE effectively got Gallagher to use the word "envelope". Once that happened, his campaign was over. More people were watching that Frontline show than were listening to the Pat Kenny show. That changed minds immediately because the term "Brown Envelope" is so strongly identified with corruption. Anyone who may have been considering voting for Gallagher prior to that would have been given something to think about.

The "only one term" thing was a political excuse to deal with the question of Higgins' age. By using the "one term" excuse, it effectively nullified any further questioning along the lines of the candidate's age.

This is something that will be exploited by other candidates.

Regards...jmcc

In summary, it was the tweet that swung it in MHD's favour and not his age.

His age is very much in the public domain. His age didn't hinder him thus far and people are free to vote for another candidate.

I don't see what your issue is. You get to vote in a way that reflects your dislike of the man.

jmcc

batgoat wrote: »

Jmcc seems intent on believing everything will change people's minds. Also implying that he might have Parkinsons.... It's all a bit petty.

I tried to explain how cameras can amplify the effect of any flaws for candidates in quite simple terms for you. The explanation was obviously not simple enough. When someone is looking at media footage of an older candidate with a visibly shaking hand with a very bad and continuous tremor, what will they think? Unless they are some kind of fanatic for whom their candidate can do no wrong, they will wonder about the health of the candidate. And in doing so that hesitation may cause them to shift their vote. The percentage of dedicated party/candidate supporters in any Irish election is much smaller than the percentage of unaffiliated voters and it is often, as in the case of General Elections, the floating vote that decides the outcome. Presidential elections are a special case because candidate moreso than in a General Election are appealing for votes across party lines. Thus a candidate who displays any kind of weakness or infirmity is at a disadvantage.

During the 2016 US presidential campaign, HRC had a number of health issues and her collapse at a 9/11 commemoration was one of the key events in that election in that it raised questions about her health. There was a lot of spin to try to keep the issue from going viral but it failed and the candidates' health became a major issue for the election.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

In summary, it was the tweet that swung it in MHD's favour and not his age.

They were two very different things. The fake tweet and RTE's use of it effectively destroyed Gallagher's campaign within a few seconds.

The "one term only" thing was used to stop questioning by other candidates and the media of Higgins age.

And now the "one term" pledge has been broken and there's a lot of spin and excuses from Higgins supporters about it.

Regards...jmcc

batgoat

jmcc wrote: »

I tried to explain how cameras can amplify the effect of any flaws for candidates in quite simple terms for you. The explanation was obviously not simple enough. When someone is looking at media footage of an older candidate with a visibly shaking hand with a very bad and continuous tremor, what will they think? Unless they are some kind fanatic for whom their candidate can do no wrong, they will wonder about the health of the candidate. And in doing so that hesitation may cause them to shift their vote. The percentage of dedicated party/candidate supporters in any Irish election is much smaller than the percentage of unaffiliated voters and it is often, as in the case of General Elections, the floating vote that decides the outcome. Presidential elections are a special case because candidate moreso than in a General Election are appealing for votes across party lines. Thus a candidate who displays any kind of weakness or infirmity is at a disadvantage.

During the 2016 US presidential campaign, HRC had a number of health issues and her collapse at a 9/11 commemoration was one of the key events in that election in that it raised questions about her health. There was a lot of spin to try to keep the issue from going viral but it failed and the candidates' health became a major issue for the election.

Regards...jmcc

Michael D has 7 years in offices with no indications of health issues.... Clinton's election loss was not related to her health. There's no indication had any major impact upon the result, it was primarily things like rustbelt areas, it was a poorly coordinated campaign ultimately. We have MEPs such as Brian Crowley who had massive health issues in the last European Elections and he still got elected, even though he had incredibly low attendance in Parliament at the time and continues to..

Meanwhile Michael D seems entirely health, is liked and people seem genuinely fine with the fact that he's running for a second term. So reach away at reasons why Michael D won't be reelected but I strongly suspect that he'll be around for another 7 years.

Alf Veedersane

jmcc wrote: »

They were two very different things. The fake tweet and RTE's use of it effectively destroyed Gallagher's campaign within a few seconds.

The "one term only" thing was used to stop questioning by other candidates and the media of Higgins age.

And now the "one term" pledge has been broken and there's a lot of spin and excuses from Higgins supporters about it.

Regards...jmcc

You're making an issue of it as though it had any influence on the result.

Also, the continued use of 'pledge' overeggs it. He said he wouldn't be running again. That's not quite the same as a pledge.

So vote for someone else. That's the beauty of an election.

gandalf

Tbh at the time Michael D probably believed that he would be a single term president. Now after doing the job for seven years he wants to continue and feels strong enough to do so. I don't see the problem here. Yes at his age it's a risk but then again this role is almost entirely ceremonial and guided by the government.

I didn't vote for him in 2011 and I don't really like the man but I do have to concede that he has represented the country well with intelligence and integrity.

I look at the other potential candidates for the role and really do not see an alternative to him. Most do not seem to understand the role, are conspiracy theorists, bat**** crazy, dodgy as hell or a combination of all these.

ligerdub

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

In summary, it was the tweet that swung it in MHD's favour and not his age.

His age is very much in the public domain. His age didn't hinder him thus far and people are free to vote for another candidate.

I don't see what your issue is. You get to vote in a way that reflects your dislike of the man.

That's all very well and good, but so far he's the only official candidate. If he goes unopposed then voters that consider his one-term promise (which it was) a material problem then people aren't free to vote for somebody else.....as there'd be no election to begin with. Even if there is an election his competition will be a lot less severe this time around. He has the natural advantage of being the incumbent, and most of the parties seem unwilling to nominate a candidate to go up against him (yes he'll probably win, but like I say, he's the incumbent).

By coincidence, in the time since 2011, Higgins has stayed in reasonably good health, while Martin McGuinness passed away, and David Norris has been suffering from a very serious illness himself. Health is a factor, but I think the promise of 1 term becomes material for voters regardless of their age. Voters in 2011 would have considered him as a one term guy, had they been voting for somebody for a potential 14 year term from winning one election then that would have been a lot different for many people.

I voted for Higgins, I'd more than likely vote for him again. I do however completely understand how some people say he has gone back on his word
If he didn't think it was that important or wasn't really that sure then he didn't need to categorically say he was going to serve one term. He could just as easily have said something like "I intend to only serve one term if elected". I've yet to see him comment on his U-turn either, perhaps he has. He's an experienced guy so he should know better when making statements in absolute terms.

There seems to be this blasé attitude that we shouldn't have an election, it's a waste of time and money etc. Translation: we already have the guy I like, so let's just keep him. It's quite a selfish viewpoint. This viewpoint also tends to coincide with people who tend to downplay the role when it suits yet play up the virtues of their guy simultaneously.

Higgins has largely done very well in the role, but that doesn't make him perfect. People would be doing well to recognise this U-turn as very material, potentially deceitful from him to begin with, and shouldn't just bat away this quite fair criticism because they like the guy being criticised. I'm sure they'd be the first ones to pile in on any (possibly false) accusation towards the ones they don't like.

gandalf

Personally after analysis given the role has no power I'd prefer if the president was chosen by the Dail and Seanad and the whole country gets to vote for the Seanad instead (two years after a General Election).

Alf Veedersane

ligerdub wrote: »

There seems to be this blasé attitude that we shouldn't have an election, it's a waste of time and money etc. Translation: we already have the guy I like, so let's just keep him. It's quite a selfish viewpoint. This viewpoint also tends to coincide with people who tend to downplay the role when it suits yet play up the virtues of their guy simultaneousl.

I absolutely think there should be an election. I don't think he should go unopposed and I don't think he will.

I just don't think its an issue that he's decided to go again. I also don't think someone should have voted, the last time, on the basis that they might be voting for someone who would serve for 14 years because that's not what you're voting for. 7 years is a long time for the landscape to change.

jmcc

gandalf wrote: »

Personally after analysis given the role has no power I'd prefer if the president was chosen by the Dail and Seanad and the whole country gets to vote for the Seanad instead (two years after a General Election).

It is certainly an interesting idea. The restrictions on the Seanad voting may also have to be removed in such a scenario.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I absolutely think there should be an election. I don't think he should go unopposed and I don't think he will.

I just don't think its an issue that he's decided to go again. I also don't think someone should have voted, the last time, on the basis that they might be voting for someone who would serve for 14 years because that's not what you're voting for. 7 years is a long time for the landscape to change.

The 7 year term is approximately 39% of an electoral generation. A 14 year term is approximately 78% of an electoral generation. Even in a single term parties can collapse (Labour) and others can replace them (SF). The electoral landscape can and will change. As a term, it is too long.

Regards...jmcc

Yer Da sells Avon

jmcc wrote: »

Yes he did. (See the video clip above.)

He did not make it a 'central element' of his campaign.

jmcc wrote: »

Yes, some did.

They didn't. It's a hilariously stupid suggestion. People voted for him because he was, by a considerable margin, the best candidate. And they'll do the same in October.

jmcc

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

He did not make it a 'central element' of his campaign.

He did because it shut down any questioning of his age. This kind of thing happens in politics.

They didn't. It's a hilariously stupid suggestion.

Unlike you, most of us don't claim to know why everyone voted the way that they did. For many, Higgins was the least worst choice and the one term thing would have influenced that choice.

Regards...jmcc

oscarBravo

jmcc wrote: »

You are. It is that simple.

I'm not sure what your issue with Higgins is, but it seems to have scrambled your brain.

I haven't even particularly discussed Higgins, let alone make excuses for him. I was discussing your completely unsupported allegation of lying. I pointed out that you were making a serious accusation without bothering to produce the slightest evidence whatsoever.

Higgins pledged to do only one term. It was in all the newspapers and media coverage of the 2011 election. There are even a few video clips around of him making the pledge. You were around at the time and could not have failed to notice.

I know. We weren't talking about whether or not he said he'd only serve one term; we were talking about whether he knew that to be untrue when he said it.

Feel free to evade the point again in your next reply. I don't think you're as obtuse as you're pretending to be, so all your arm-waving evasion does you no credit.

Evidently in seven years time you will figure out what happened with the little Twitter war between a bunch of media hacks and O'Doherty the other day that resulted in threats of legal action and an Irish Times journalist pulling a tweet about O'Doherty.

It doesn't seem to take much for O'Doherty to threaten legal action.

Higgins pledged to do only one term only. He broke that pledge and is now running for election for a second term.

Yes. So you keep saying.

You seem to have stopped saying that he lied, so I guess that's as close as you'll get to an admission that you can't back up that accusation with anything resembling evidence.

Pa8301

jmcc wrote: »

He did because it shut down any questioning of his age. This kind of thing happens in politics.

Unlike you, most of us don't claim to know why everyone voted the way that they did. For many, Higgins was the least worst choice and the one term thing would have influenced that choice.

Regards...jmcc

You say that most of us don't claim to know why everyone voted the way they did then go on to claim that many people voted for Higgins as he was the least worst choice....

jmcc

Pa8301 wrote: »

You say that most of us don't claim to know why everyone voted the way they did then go on to claim that many people voted for Higgins as he was the least worst choice....

Higgins was trailing 25% to 40% in multiple opinion polls until RTE used the fake tweet to nobble Gallagher. It is logical that there was a shift after the Frontline show where Gallagher used the word "envelope" and the FF fundraising activity was brought up by McGuinness. Mitchell/FG was a complete loss. Norris had been nobbled earlier (twice). McGuinness was not an option for many voters as he was SF. Gallagher was leading the polls and the floating vote switched to Higgins as the least worst choice.

The problem for Higgins, this time around, is that his vote is not a "Higgins" vote per se but rather a composite of that of Higgins supporters, the few Labour supporters that are left and a floating vote that may or may not vote for him.

Regards...jmcc

gandalf

jmcc wrote: »

Higgins was trailing 25% to 40% in multiple opinion polls until RTE used the fake tweet to nobble Gallagher. It is logical that there was a shift after the Frontline show where Gallagher used the word "envelope" and the FF fundraising activity was brought up by McGuinness. Mitchell/FG was a complete loss. Norris had been nobbled earlier (twice). McGuinness was not an option for many voters as he was SF. Gallagher was leading the polls and the floating vote switched to Higgins as the least worst choice.

The problem for Higgins, this time around, is that his vote is not a "Higgins" vote per se but rather a composite of that of Higgins supporters, the few Labour supporters that are left and a floating vote that may or may not vote for him.

Regards...jmcc

I thought it was Sinn Fein that knobbled Sean Gallagher and RTE were complicate because they stupidly used the tweet without verifying the account it came from and that the content was accurate. I don't believe RTE deliberately did it, I believe they incompetently did it (which sums up the whole organisation).

tbh looking at Gallagher and his affiliations I think the country dodged a bullet with him.

Loafing Oaf

gandalf wrote: »

tbh looking at Gallagher and his affiliations I think the country dodged a bullet with him.

I could never understand how he came to the fore in that race. For me, you could have made a case for any of the other candidates as president but I couldn't see any argument for him at all...

gandalf

As for Michael D., yes essientially you could say he lied that he would only serve one term. Then again he is a politician and you'd be niaive in the extreme if you believed every promise that cames out of a politicians mouth would be honoured. Yes it is a very cynical view of the world but it's accurate.

As for Gemma O'D given she threatened the journalist that interviewed her for the Sunday Business Post article that was published yesterday during the interview I really think she has cooked her goose before the contest even starts.

Part of me hopes she does get nominated to see the clusterfvck that manifests when she comes under real scrutiny but another part doesn't want her to even get that platform for some of the dodgy bacofoil covered ideas that she and her band of "interesting" supporters espouse.

gandalf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I could never understand how he came to the fore in that race. For me, you could have made a case for any of the other candidates as president but I couldn't see any argument for him at all...

They guy is ex-FF that is the only reason he got the support he did. Plus the line up for that election was not good (however it looks absolutely stellar given what we may be faced with on this ballot paper!).

oscarBravo

gandalf wrote: »

As for Michael D., yes essientially you could say he lied that he would only serve one term.

No, you couldn't. Jesus, I've just been through this with jmcc.

If you have evidence that he knew that what he was saying was untrue, then produce it. If not, enough with the "lying" already.

Come on, people. Words have meanings for a reason. Lying implies a deliberate intention to deceive. If we're going to use "lying" as a synonym for "changing your mind" or "reneging on a campaign promise", then we're basically saying that there's no distinction to be made between the two.

Maybe there's no difference as far as you or jmcc are concerned, but there's a world of difference to me.

pixelburp

Gallagher was a celebrity (millionaire) businessman, and recent events have demonstrated just how alluringly popular those sort of individuals can be in politics. He came into the race with a preexisting media profile, a familiarity with any in the audience not familiar with the party candidates, not to mention an initially presumed absence of party affiliation - which looped in the kneejerk "anti establishment" support.

Once his true colours were revealed over time that initial bounce of popularity was only going to head in one direction. Why he's contemplating another crack at the job is confusing. Once bitten, twice shy n' all that.

gandalf

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, you couldn't. Jesus, I've just been through this with jmcc.

If you have evidence that he knew that what he was saying was untrue, then produce it. If not, enough with the "lying" already.

Come on, people. Words have meanings for a reason. Lying implies a deliberate intention to deceive. If we're going to use "lying" as a synonym for "changing your mind" or "reneging on a campaign promise", then we're basically saying that there's no distinction to be made between the two.

Maybe there's no difference as far as you or jmcc are concerned, but there's a world of difference to me.

Ah cmon Oscar read what I said, "essientially you could say he lied". I didn't say he lied, what I meant is you could see how someone could come to the conclusion he lied. I said earlier in this thread that at the time he probably believed what he was saying but now he feels differently.

I don't have a problem with this jmcc does. In my mind the man can change his mind on this, if he feels he is up to the challenge of another term then that's fine with me.

I have more of a problem with someone saying they are going to use the presidency to do something that constitutionally the role can't help them deliver. That's the sort of liar I have real problems with!

VinLieger

Itching to read this car crash of an interview Gemma O Doherty did in the sunday business post that she then tried her "legal" shenanigans to stop being published

Zubeneschamali

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I could never understand how he came to the fore in that race.

He was the FF candidate with the numbers filed off, so all the FF voters and all the people who used to vote FF until the wheels came off were going to vote for him.

jmcc

gandalf wrote: »

I thought it was Sinn Fein that knobbled Sean Gallagher and RTE were complicate because they stupidly used the tweet without verifying the account it came from and that the content was accurate. I don't believe RTE deliberately did it, I believe they incompetently did it (which sums up the whole organisation).

Harry McGee on the Irish Times had a timeline of events which nobody has disputed. It seems that there were some individuals on the Frontline team with Labour connections/affliations and the audience was not drawn at random from the electorate but chosen by the Frontline team. Some of those who asked questions had Labour affiliations. Questions were rewritten by the Frontline team for the questoners. Higgins was not asked any probing questions whereas other candidates were asked multiple questions.

Two of the questions about Gallagher's business activities from the same "friend of the Frontline" show had been asked and, based on audience reaction, they were impenetrable and irrelevant to members of the audience and most peopel watching the show.

The initial RTE/Frontline plan to hit Gallagher hard(The "gamechanger" that the RTE advertising had been claiming for the Frontline show) was effectively in tatters. The fake tweet from the fake SF account appeared on Twitter and at least one member of the Frontline team was a follower of the individual in Harry McGee's timeline who made the initial claim about an SF contact having mentioned details of that cheque and the individual concerned (this was followed by the fake tweet from the fake SF Twitter account). That was followed by the tweet from the fake McGuinness/SF account. This was used by the Frontline team without even bothering to verify with the SF people who were there in the studio. McGuinness then demolished Gallagher. The Frontline show did not mention that that the tweet was fake even though it had more than enough time to do so and could have verified the tweet was fake with the SF campaign team in the studio. The problem was compounded by the fact that the Pat Kenny show the following morning did not clarify that the tweet was fake. (This was part of the BAI complaint and mentioned in the RTE investigations.)

The aftermath for RTE wasn't good. It initially tried to claim that there was nothing wrong but the Sunday Independent did some good journalism on uncovering the Labour connections of the Frontline team. There was an internal RTE investigation and, I think, an external investigation and these were very hard hitting in terms of the procedures and the audience selection and other things. The complaints to the BAI by Gallagher were upheld and Gallagher took legal action against RTE. RTE settled and paid damages to Gallagher rather than have the action proceed to a full trial. Some of the Frontline staff did not have their contracts renewed. The Frontline show was cancelled. It was a complete disaster for RTE in that it destroyed the credibilty of one of its flagship shows and cast serious doubts over RTE's journalistic impartiality.

tbh looking at Gallagher and his affiliations I think the country dodged a bullet with him.

That's democracy or rather it would have been had RTE/Frontline not effectively interfered with the election.

This interference with the democratic process is what irritates a lot of people. It made Higgins' election questionable in light of how it was effected. It also created a very powerful "wronged man" dynamic for Gallagher should he choose to enter this election. Without RTE/Frontline's interference in the election, Higgins would probably have lost the election.

The venal attempt by FF/FG to impose what would have been a coronation for Higgins on the Irish people (purely for these parties to save money for their own electioneering) has angered people. It would have been another stitch-up without Senator Craughwell forcing the issue and SF announcing that it would run a candidate. Depending on how the various demographics split, there is a possibility of an SF candidate winning this election. Higgins was a least worst option in the last election. The voter demographics on which Higgins depended in the last election are diminished. Labour on 3% in the most recent opinion poll and only on 7 seats in the Dail and 51 seats on local councils. FF is no longer toxic so voting for a candidate such as Gallagher would be no major problem for FFers. The blurring of the lines between FF and FG means that FGers may have no problems in voting for a non-Higgins candidate. The most interesting aspect of this election will be to see the effect of the conservative vote that voted against repealing the 8th. That's quite a sizeable vote and it seems to be concentrated in more mature demographics and it is these demographics that vote most reliably. Freeman, if she gets the nomination, could attract a lot of these reliable votes. The potential competition would then be between Freeman, Gallagher and the SF candidate.

Regards...jmcc

James Brown

The nation dodged a bullet with Gallagher. He's everything wrong with 'politics' in the social media age IMO.

jmcc wrote: »

Higgins was trailing 25% to 40% in multiple opinion polls until RTE used the fake tweet to nobble Gallagher. It is logical that there was a shift after the Frontline show where Gallagher used the word "envelope" and the FF fundraising activity was brought up by McGuinness. Mitchell/FG was a complete loss. Norris had been nobbled earlier (twice). McGuinness was not an option for many voters as he was SF. Gallagher was leading the polls and the floating vote switched to Higgins as the least worst choice.

The problem for Higgins, this time around, is that his vote is not a "Higgins" vote per se but rather a composite of that of Higgins supporters, the few Labour supporters that are left and a floating vote that may or may not vote for him.

Regards...jmcc

We've a government cobbled together on less.
I think Higgins is very popular and will breeze back in.

Pa8301

jmcc wrote: »

Harry McGee on the Irish Times had a timeline of events which nobody has disputed. It seems that there were some individuals on the Frontline team with Labour connections/affliations and the audience was not drawn at random from the electorate but chosen by the Frontline team. Some of those who asked questions had Labour affiliations. Questions were rewritten by the Frontline team for the questoners. Higgins was not asked any probing questions whereas other candidates were asked multiple questions.

Two of the questions about Gallagher's business activities from the same "friend of the Frontline" show had been asked and, based on audience reaction, they were impenetrable and irrelevant to members of the audience and most peopel watching the show.

The initial RTE/Frontline plan to hit Gallagher hard(The "gamechanger" that the RTE advertising had been claiming for the Frontline show) was effectively in tatters. The fake tweet from the fake SF account appeared on Twitter and at least one member of the Frontline team was a follower of the individual in Harry McGee's timeline who made the initial claim about an SF contact having mentioned details of that cheque and the individual concerned (this was followed by the fake tweet from the fake SF Twitter account). That was followed by the tweet from the fake McGuinness/SF account. This was used by the Frontline team without even bothering to verify with the SF people who were there in the studio. McGuinness then demolished Gallagher. The Frontline show did not mention that that the tweet was fake even though it had more than enough time to do so and could have verified the tweet was fake with the SF campaign team in the studio. The problem was compounded by the fact that the Pat Kenny show the following morning did not clarify that the tweet was fake. (This was part of the BAI complaint and mentioned in the RTE investigations.)

The aftermath for RTE wasn't good. It initially tried to claim that there was nothing wrong but the Sunday Independent did some good journalism on uncovering the Labour connections of the Frontline team. There was an internal RTE investigation and, I think, an external investigation and these were very hard hitting in terms of the procedures and the audience selection and other things. The complaints to the BAI by Gallagher were upheld and Gallagher took legal action against RTE. RTE settled and paid damages to Gallagher rather than have the action proceed to a full trial. Some of the Frontline staff did not have their contracts renewed. The Frontline show was cancelled. It was a complete disaster for RTE in that it destroyed the credibilty of one of its flagship shows and cast serious doubts over RTE's journalistic impartiality.

That's democracy or rather it would have been had RTE/Frontline not effectively interfered with the election.

This interference with the democratic process is what irritates a lot of people. It made Higgins' election questionable in light of how it was effected. It also created a very powerful "wronged man" dynamic for Gallagher should he choose to enter this election. Without RTE/Frontline's interference in the election, Higgins would probably have lost the election.

The venal attempt by FF/FG to impose what would have been a coronation for Higgins on the Irish people (purely for these parties to save money for their own electioneering) has angered people. It would have been another stitch-up without Senator Craughwell forcing the issue and SF announcing that it would run a candidate. Depending on how the various demographics split, there is a possibility of an SF candidate winning this election. Higgins was a least worst option in the last election. The voter demographics on which Higgins depended in the last election are diminished. Labour on 3% in the most recent opinion poll and only on 7 seats in the Dail and 51 seats on local councils. FF is no longer toxic so voting for a candidate such as Gallagher would be no major problem for FFers. The blurring of the lines between FF and FG means that FGers may have no problems in voting for a non-Higgins candidate. The most interesting aspect of this election will be to see the effect of the conservative vote that voted against repealing the 8th. That's quite a sizeable vote and it seems to be concentrated in more mature demographics and it is these demographics that vote most reliably. Freeman, if she gets the nomination, could attract a lot of these reliable votes. The potential competition would then be between Freeman, Gallagher and the SF candidate.

Regards...jmcc

I think you're overestimating this whole "anger of the people over the attempted coronation" issue. I don't think that many people are really that bothered about it. I can only see a pretty comfortable Higgins victory. I could be wrong of course.

jmcc

gandalf wrote: »

I don't have a problem with this jmcc does. In my mind the man can change his mind on this, if he feels he is up to the challenge of another term then that's fine with me.

I consider OscarBravo to be quite unfamiliar with politics and the media (specifically spin and PR). The pledge to do one term only was used by the Higgins campaign to neutralise any questions about Higgins' age and health.

There had been considerable discussion up to that point about Higgins' age and his hobbling about due to a knee injury and the serious tremor in his hand were raising questions. RTE had tried to limit this coverage by using static shots of Higgins sitting and standing. Higgins had also started to fold his hands on TV interviews and was using fewer hand gestures.

The pledge was a hostage to fortune. Back then, the future for Labour and FG was quite rosy and FF had, or so they thought, been destroyed as a major party. Had the situation remained unchanged, then Higgins' relection would have been a foregone conclusion. But things did change and now Labour needs Higgins to win if it is still to be considered a national party. The pledge to do only one term was a cynical political move to gain votes that has now backfired.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The nation dodged a bullet with Gallagher. He's everything wrong with 'politics' in the social media age IMO.

You are entitled to think that and vote accordingly. That's democracy. There is either a democracy or there is not. That's the bigger question.

We've a government cobbled together on less.
I think Higgins is very popular and will breeze back in.

Read the post above to understand why this is not a simple "reelect Higgins" election but rather a more complex one in which a proxy General Election is being fought.

Regards...jmcc