So Michael D IS running again!

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I don't believe Gallagher or Duffy are the kind of character looking to be an ambassador for the country. Gallagher will be looking to sell himself and use the office to further his business ties IMO. We need someone with a level of grace and respect for themselves. With the quality currently running, nobody comes close to Higgins.

Neither of them seem like they have any interests outside their pursuit of business success. Woefully under qualified for the job imo.
Gallagher is damaged goods and Duffy has yet to have his motivation for running questioned. That could be fun when it happens.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't have a problem with loopers, FF bagmen or z-list RTE "celebs" getting onto the ballot.

Let them humiliate themselves.

Fine, but its all at your expense and mine.

Fine, but its all at your expense and mine.

Nope - they don't get a cent unless they win 12.5%

How many languages to the candidates have? Higgins is a polyglot with fluent Irish (formal state engagements) and Spanish (comarada!). Considering the nature of the role, it'd be an advantage to have a second language at least

VinLieger wrote: »

Id wager on Duffy to produce the dirt and attacks during the campaign and debates while leaving Gallagher looking supremely presidential to sit above the rest of the field

It would be interesting if that happened and it would upset a lot of Higgins supporters because Higgins, as president, would have to be careful about what he says. The Independent still has that RTE whistleblower story and the Aras expenses are being mentioned. SF announces its nominee tomorrow so it would not be unexpected to see the usual Higgins/Labour supporters in the media trying to put the boot in on SF.

Regards...jmcc

blanch152 wrote: »

Higgins is popular in the way that caricatures are.

If any of the other candidates get some traction around the seriousness of the post, or something different that they contribute, they could make inroads.

It will be difficult for Higgins to decide whether to stay above it all as the incumbent, or get down and dirty. Either way he will be a target for someone.

Yes there is no doubt there are those who caricature his height and voice but there are many more imo than value his deep engagement with issues and the fact that Higgins always puts the human being first. His is very very well read and intelligent. But if you are affected by looks and other shallow things you probably can't get by how he looks or sounds.

Higgins didn't really get down and dirty last time and it stood to him in the end.

jmcc wrote: »

He didn't have to as the media, especially RTE, was on his side. This may change in this election as RTE were caught with the Frontline/Pat Kenny show and will have to be on its best behaviour to ensure impartiality. Labour is only on 3% in the latest opinion poll. The dirt has already started flying about Higgins but it is relatively low level.

Regards...jmcc

Unless he has been up to something extremely nefarious while in office there should be no surprises for him.

jmcc wrote: »

Haven't noticed it yet? Look at the way that the Aras expenses have been floated over the last few weeks and the mention of questions being asked at the Public Accounts Committee. The whole champagne socialist thing is going to be a major liability for the Higgins campaign and it will be exploited.

Regards...jmcc

If he is seen to have been demanding the 'champagne' it may do damage, and should, frankly, otherwise I can't see it doing massive damage to him.

jmcc wrote: »

How about using the government jet to fly to poetry readings in Kerry?

Regards...jmcc

If he demanded that then he shouldn't have.

jmcc wrote: »

Doesn't matter. In Politics, perception matters.

Regards...jmcc

No doubt. If the cost of the presidency has risen significantly then he can be damaged. But I am not seeing that.
This has been floated and doesn't seem to have gotten much traction, early days though.

jmcc wrote: »

The PAC meeting hasn't been held yet. It has been mentioned but that's only the start. This is the way that negative campaigning works. The first almost non-specific mentions give it credibility and then it is weaponised during the campaign. The happy-clappies who believe that their party/candidate wouldn't do such things all seem to believe that such nasty campaigning techniques won't be used. But look at how Norris was nobbled (twice) the last time. Look at how Dana and Davis were treated. And, of course, look at how Gallagher was nobbled.

Regards...jmcc

I suspect that the story that it's 'only the start' may be coming from anti-Higgins factions.
I may be wrong.
Unless he has been ordering in coke and hookers I can see a few flights doing some damage but not a lot.

We'll see, if he has been spending wildly it would change my opinion.

jmcc wrote: »

The whole champagne socialist thing is going to be a major liability for the Higgins campaign and it will be exploited.

The wish seems to be father to the thought in this post. (And in dozens just like it, at this stage.)

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Gallagher is damaged goods and Duffy has yet to have his motivation for running questioned.

I get the strong impression that Duffy's looked at Gallagher's antics, and thought, "anything that spluffer can do... if he can be the FF candidate without the shame of the name, I can be the FG one!"

Silly enough as it is to have one gameshow candidate, it's rather farcical to end up with multiples from the very same show. Maybe if you're into conspiracy theories, GD is in it to detract "credibility"(!) from SG's run. But I very much doubt it's anything nearly so self-aware as that.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You'd have to think anything seriously damaging to pre-presidential MDH woyuld have come out in the wash in 2011.

Not when the media selected Higgins as its candidate and made sure that he got all that positive coverage while his opponents got the hard questions.

As Francie says, unless he's been having coke and hookers delivered to the Aras, it's hard to imagine anything he has been up to over the last seven years being sufficiently blackening to deprive him of a second term...

The key target in this election is not the happy-clappy Higgins supporter vote but the floating voter demographic. These are the voters that decide the outcome of elections in Ireland and the dedicated party supporter vote is actually a lot smaller than it would appear. Their vote doesn't crystalise until the final week of an election campaign and some will only decide in the polling boot. The aim of such negative campaigning will not be to get them to change their vote as they have no real voting preference yet but to give them a moment of hesitation before voting. In that moment, things change.

Regards...jmcc