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

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You're perhaps overlooking the age profile of the electorate, and fact that there are a hell of a lot 20-somethings in this country than there are 70-somethings and 80-somethings combined.

Younger demographics are those below 30.

It was precisely this kind of demographic which caused so many people to be surprised by the outcome of the 8th Amendment referendum -- I don't suppose you had a detailed prediction about that? You haven't said...

Wasn't at all surprised due to the fact that some of the pollsters made a complete mess of things by relying on telephone polling when there were supposed to have been at least 100K new voters added in the run-up to the vote. The telephone polling methodology was seriously flawed because of the low probability of these new voters having a fixed telephone line rather than a mobile phone. This meant that the mobile phone half of the survey was not properly representative and that undue emphasis was placed on the fixed line part of the survey.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Too early to be speculating on this. When we see the first volleys of the campaign fired and the first opinion poll we will know better.

Yep. The polling methodology will be important (telephone polling versus face to face questioning).

Regards...jmcc

[Deleted User]

jmcc wrote: »

Wasn't at all surprised due to the fact that some of the pollsters made a complete mess of things by relying on telephone polling when there were supposed to have been at least 100K new voters added in the run-up to the vote. The telephone polling methodology was seriously flawed because of the low probability of these new voters having a fixed telephone line rather than a mobile phone. This meant that the mobile phone half of the survey was not properly representative and that undue emphasis was placed on the fixed line part of the survey.

Regards...jmcc

I find it difficult to believe that pollsters haven't thought of this, given that this phenomenon has been in play for well over a decade.

It isn't as though pollsters just disregard age when they're conducting polls, they're supposed to capture a sample that represents recent electoral demographics (or, failing that, the age pyramid of the general adult population).

They don't just gather random samples, not if they have the most elementary notion of how to do their job.

jmcc

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I find it difficult to believe that pollsters haven't thought of this, given that this phenomenon has been in play for well over a decade.

Opinion polling is closer to Astrology than Statistics.

The telephone polling is largely a US import but the problem is that the Irish phone system is not laid out along US geographical zones where the area code is more accurate. The mobile phones don't have any geographical indicators. The phone numbers are supposed to be randomly generated but there are some anecdotal reports of people who had cooperated in one poll being repolled again.

The response rate (those who when concated are not willing to be polled) is also important but it rarely seems to be published. This means that rather than it being the poll of 1,000 people, it may actually be a poll of more than 1,000.

The pollsters also apply their own "secret sauce" adjustments to some of these polls to derive other indications. The problem is that it can lead to complete bolloxology like the "Burton Bounce" which had to remove SF voters along with other voters from the poll to get the "bounce".

There's also a cyclical effect in the main Irish polls in that each poll seems to favour specific party. Thus a party might do well in one poll but will not do well in the other polls that month. It is visible in the poll of poll type graphs. This kind of cyclical effect is very unusual and odd for supposedly random samples from the electorate.

They don't just gather random samples, not if they have the most elementary notion of how to do their job.

That changes a poll from being a random sample to something completely different.

Regards...jmcc

Water John

Did somebody put Trump and sophisticated in the one sentence???

alaimacerc

jmcc wrote: »

That changes a poll from being a random sample to something completely different.

Any guesses in the class for what weighting turns a random sample into?

... waiting... waiting...

alaimacerc

Water John wrote: »

Did somebody put Trump and sophisticated in the one sentence???

Dictator chic type of "sophisticated".

Solid gold toilets, mass disinformation, that type of "classy" stuff.

jmcc

Water John wrote: »

Did somebody put Trump and sophisticated in the one sentence???

Trump's Data operation was far more sophisticated than HRC's. It got him to campaign in areas where he could have picked up votes. HRC didn't even bother going there because the Democrats thought that they had the areas. Those areas were crucial to winning some of the Electoral College votes.

Regards...jmcc

[Deleted User]

jmcc wrote: »

The pollsters also apply their own "secret sauce" adjustments to some of these polls to derive other indications.

JMCC... if you don't know the methodology that pollsters are employing, how can you claim that the telephone polls are problematic?

I see no reason to believe that the polling companies have not realised possible limitations with things like fixed-line telephone connections, it isn't exactly rocket science, and it should be fairly easy to overcome.

An Ciarraioch

Now that we have a Red C GE poll tonight, the presidential poll is presumably being saved for the print edition.

jmcc

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

JMCC... if you don't know the methodology that pollsters are employing, how can you claim that the telephone polls are problematic?

Because they publish their basic methodology of using samples of 500 fixed line subscribers and 500 mobile phone subscribers but don't generally publish the response rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_rate_(survey)

I see no reason to believe that the polling companies have not realised possible limitations with things like fixed-line telephone connections, it isn't exactly rocket science, and it should be fairly easy to overcome.

People who say something is not rocket science aren't typically rocket scientists.

Fixed line subscribers have different demographics to mobile phone subscribers. There is also an overlap. Fixed line subscribers are likely to be older than many mobile phone subscribers. This caused problems with the Repeal referendum where they underestimated the support for Repeal and thought that it would be much closer. It was no surprise because most of the 100K new voters would have been underestimated because the sample wasn't a single sample but really two distinct samples of 500 with some possible overlap.

Regards...jmcc

[Deleted User]

jmcc wrote: »

Because they publish their basic methodology of using samples of 500 fixed line subscribers and 500 mobile phone subscribers but don't generally publish the response rate.

Are you telling me you're assuming that polling companies do not apportion weights to their sampling in order to reflect the age and gender profile of voters at all? That it's all random?

It's not really obvious why we should assume that the polling companies operate in a way that anyone with a basic grasp of statistics would not.

jmcc

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Are you telling me you're assuming that polling companies do not apportion weights to their sampling in order to reflect the age and gender profile of voters at all? That it's all random?

I added the link to Wikipedia on response rates. Go read it.

Regards...jmcc

[Deleted User]

jmcc wrote: »

I added the link to Wikipedia on response rates. Go read it.

Regards...jmcc

I know what a response rate is, but it doesn't answer why you've chosen to make the assumptions you have about Irish polling companies, i.e. that they are apparently not weighting their samples to reflect the electorate, that it's all random.

A leaving cert maths student wouldn't have applied a methodology of the type you seem to be assuming.

Capt'n Midnight

jmcc wrote: »

Some of the elctorate that voted for Higgins is dead. Presidential elections are also driven by party political dynamics

Speaking of historical voters, the days of OAP FF voters turning out and voting FF because that's what their family always did and wining elections is gone.

The days of FF handing out the Presidency as a reward are long gone.

Brian Lenihan back in 1990 was the last time either FF or FG tried to get one of their senior party members elected. Mary McAleese while backed by FF wasn't exactly one of the party faithful or fellow travellers like Gallagher. Austin Currie wasn't exactly FG either.

Labour got just 6.6% of the vote at the last election. Michael would twice that to just to get his expenses back, if it was party political.

Last time out MD got 2.5 times as many transfers as Gallagher.
SF don't attract transfers but I'd expect a lot more of theirs to go left than to an FF businessman.

So even if Seanie and Miggldy were neck and neck on first preference I'd still expect Higgans to win.

Cork Boy 53

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Speaking of historical voters, the days of OAP FF voters turning out and voting FF because that's what their family always did and wining elections is gone.

The days of FF handing out the Presidency as a reward are long gone.

Brian Lenihan back in 1990 was the last time either FF or FG tried to get one of their senior party members elected. Mary McAleese while backed by FF wasn't exactly one of the party faithful or fellow travellers like Gallagher. Austin Currie wasn't exactly FG either.

Labour got just 6.6% of the vote at the last election. Michael would twice that to just to get his expenses back, if it was party political.

Last time out MD got 2.5 times as many transfers as Gallagher.
SF don't attract transfers but I'd expect a lot more of theirs to go left than to an FF businessman.

So even if Seanie and Miggldy were neck and neck on first preference I'd still expect Higgans to win.

Mary Banotti in 1997 and Gay Mitchell in 2011? FG blue bloods through and through. Also Albert Reynolds who thought he was assured of the FF nomination in 1997 until he got shafted by Bertie and his cronies.

[Deleted User]

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

Mary Banotti in 1997 and Gay Mitchell in 2011? FG blue bloods through and through.

Hardly examples of senior party members by the time of their respective elections.

I suppose GM is questionable, although his role in Lisbon 1 should surely have solidified his peripheral significance.

jmcc

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Speaking of historical voters, the days of OAP FF voters turning out and voting FF because that's what their family always did and wining elections is gone.

The days of FF handing out the Presidency as a reward are long gone.

That's not the main point. FF is nowhere as toxic as it was in 2011 and that has resulted in a shift back of many floating voters that would have previously voted FF. This detoxification of the FF brand means that it may be easier for Gallagher to get votes even with being a "genepool" FFer.

So even if Seanie and Miggldy were neck and neck on first preference I'd still expect Higgans to win.

And if Gallagher or Ni Riada are ahead?

Regards...jmcc

batgoat

jmcc wrote: »

That's not the main point. FF is nowhere as toxic as it was in 2011 and that has resulted in a shift back of many floating voters that would have previously voted FF. This detoxification of the FF brand means that it may be easier for Gallagher to get votes even with being a "genepool" FFer.

And if Gallagher or Ni Riada are ahead?

Regards...jmcc

I don't see either being ahead. SF are putting somebody in for the sake of it. They don't expect to win. Not expecting Gallagher picking up a significant vote this time round. Michael D is far more popular than he was at the time of last election imho.

An Ciarraioch

jmcc wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Speaking of historical voters, the days of OAP FF voters turning out and voting FF because that's what their family always did and wining elections is gone.

The days of FF handing out the Presidency as a reward are long gone.

That's not the main point. FF is nowhere as toxic as it was in 2011 and that has resulted in a shift back of many floating voters that would have previously voted FF. This detoxification of the FF brand means that it may be easier for Gallagher to get votes even with being a "genepool" FFer.

So even if Seanie and Miggldy were neck and neck on first preference I'd still expect Higgans to win.

And if Gallagher or Ni Riada are ahead?

Regards...jmcc

Given you were talking about the importance of social media upthread, Higgins certainly appears the candidate favoured by the Facebook and Twitter demographic, so SF GE voters could well "lend" him their votes on this occasion, as Ní Ríada has been criticised for her position on vaccination. Gallagher will undoubtedly be stronger than has been evident to date, as older voters tend to be more reticent towards pollsters, but I would still expect MDH to be ahead on first preferences.

jmcc

batgoat wrote: »

SF are putting somebody in for the sake of it. They don't expect to win.

SF never do things for the sake of it. Labour has completely underestimated SF and its motivations. It would be funny to see SF win given that it is now the main party of the Left and 6 out 7 Labour TDs are millionaires. SF is also a lot better at working Social Media than either FF or FG so there will be an uptick in SF activity on Social Media in the next few weeks that Labour and Higgins supporters will find difficult to match. After all, Labour is the party of "Ashbourne Annie" and Ashbourne Annie was a real account on Twitter.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Given you were talking about the importance of social media upthread, Higgins certainly appears the candidate favoured by the Facebook and Twitter demographic, so SF GE voters could well "lend" him their votes on this occasion, as Ní Ríada has been criticised for her position on vaccination. Gallagher will undoubtedly be stronger than has been evident to date, as older voters tend to be more reticent towards pollsters, but I would still expect MDH to be ahead on first preferences.

There's a lot of the self-absorbed demographic on SM that may support Higgins but they are largely talking to each other rather than influencing those outside their social networks. The real targets will be those influencers who span social networks.

Regards...jmcc

batgoat

jmcc wrote: »

SF never do things for the sake of it. Labour has completely underestimated SF and its motivations. It would be funny to see SF win given that it is now the main party of the Left and 6 out 7 Labour TDs are millionaires. SF is also a lot better at working Social Media than either FF or FG so there will be an uptick in SF activity on Social Media in the next few weeks that Labour and Higgins supporters will find difficult to match. After all, Labour is the party of "Ashbourne Annie" and Ashbourne Annie was a real account on Twitter.

Regards...jmcc

They also didn't expect Martin McGuinness to win but it got them publicity and attention, basically promote the party and no need to win. I strongly doubt that they expect to come close to winning. Michael D is also incredibly popular with youth demographic so that's a fair portion of the social media demographic covered.

jmcc

batgoat wrote: »

They also didn't expect Martin McGuinness to win but it got them publicity and attention, basically promote the party and no need to win.

As I've said repeatedly, this isn't 2011.

Regards...jmcc

An Ciarraioch

SBP Presidential Poll data:

Higgins 67%
Gallagher 16%
SF 7%
Duffy 6%
Freeman 3%
Casey 1%

https://twitter.com/sundaybusiness/status/1041023844847239168/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1041023844847239168%7Ctwgr%5E373939313b636f6e74726f6c&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fcedarlounge.wordpress.com%2F2018%2F09%2F15%2Fan-end-of-summer-poll%2F

jmcc

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

SBP Presidential Poll data:

Higgins 67%
Gallagher 16%
SF 7%
Duffy 6%
Freeman 3%
Casey 1%

https://twitter.com/sundaybusiness/status/1041023844847239168/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1041023844847239168%7Ctwgr%5E373939313b636f6e74726f6c&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fcedarlounge.wordpress.com%2F2018%2F09%2F15%2Fan-end-of-summer-poll%2F

Perhaps you should take a look a the front page of the Sunday Business Post and see the lead story.

Regards...jmcc

Water John

Game over, unless something very unforeseen.

jmcc

Water John wrote: »

Game over, unless something very unforeseen.

Like this?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnKClJcW4AA_Mb8.jpg:large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnJlLsHXcAALZXl.jpg:large

Regards...jmcc

Henryhill2

jmcc wrote: »

Like this?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnKClJcW4AA_Mb8.jpg:large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnJlLsHXcAALZXl.jpg:large

Regards...jmcc

That's not going to impact higgins much

Water John

I was horrified at what Kenny did during the debate. There certainly is a case to answer, by RTE. I don't see that having a major effect on this PE.

BTW, a lot of people tend to have justified it, as the end justified the means. I totally disagree, it was very shoddy journalism at best and maybe much more.