So Michael D IS running again!

jmcc · 15-09-2018 4:29pm

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 · 15-09-2018 4:30pm

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

15-09-2018 4:40pm

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 · 15-09-2018 5:08pm

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 · 15-09-2018 5:20pm

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

alaimacerc · 15-09-2018 5:27pm

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 · 15-09-2018 5:29pm

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 · 15-09-2018 5:40pm

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

15-09-2018 5:46pm

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 · 15-09-2018 5:47pm

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

jmcc · 15-09-2018 5:56pm

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

15-09-2018 6:49pm

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 · 15-09-2018 6:57pm

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

15-09-2018 7:14pm

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 · 15-09-2018 9:17pm

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 · 15-09-2018 9:27pm

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.

15-09-2018 9:31pm

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 · 15-09-2018 9:38pm

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 · 15-09-2018 9:43pm

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 · 15-09-2018 9:48pm

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 · 15-09-2018 10:07pm

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 · 15-09-2018 10:11pm

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 · 15-09-2018 10:20pm

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 · 15-09-2018 10:25pm

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 · 15-09-2018 10:26pm

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 · 15-09-2018 10:33pm

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 · 15-09-2018 10:34pm

Game over, unless something very unforeseen.

jmcc · 15-09-2018 10:38pm

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 · 15-09-2018 10:42pm

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 · 15-09-2018 10:42pm

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.

batgoat · 15-09-2018 10:42pm

jmcc wrote: »

Like this?

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

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

Regards...jmcc

Since there is no sign of Michael D doing anything improper, I can't see that having any substantial impact.

Alan_P · 15-09-2018 10:54pm

batgoat wrote: »

Since there is no sign of Michael D doing anything improper, I can't see that having any substantial impact.

Exactly, what's any of that got to do with Michael D ? And for the record, it wasn't the incorrect Tweet allegation that destroyed Gallagher, it was his reaction to it.

This poll confirms my suspicion that this election is a waste of time.I will not be surprised if there are withdrawals. SF haven't formally nominated yet, have they ? 7% does them no good at any level. I wonder if there are party insiders suggesting they find some reason not to.

blanch152 · 15-09-2018 10:54pm

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

Sinn Fein don't have a chance.

They are down to 14% in the latest poll.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0915/993987-opinion-poll-politics/

Given they have consistently performed better in opinion polls than in elections, Ms. Ni Riadha will be doing well to keep her deposit, especially when her rather strange views of vaccinations are probed.

She is not a Martin McGuinness, capable of appealing beyond the traditional vote, she is a normal Shinner public representative, beholden to the boys in Belfast.

FrancieBrady · 15-09-2018 10:55pm

jmcc wrote: »

Like this?

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

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

Regards...jmcc

That is only going to harm Gallagher not help him. It raises the whole doubt about him again.

FrancieBrady · 15-09-2018 10:58pm

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

Just re-enforces my opinion that FG and FF were too afraid to openly run someone for the position.

jmcc · 15-09-2018 10:58pm

It raises the problem of Higgins being the RTE president. It will damage the legitimacy of his 2011 election and the electorate does not like being taken for fools.

Regards...jmcc

An Ciarraioch · 15-09-2018 11:01pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

Just re-enforces my opinion that FG and FF were too afraid to openly run someone for the position.

O'Cuiv was the only FF person to express an interest, and he'd have struggled to reach double digit percentages.

An Ciarraioch · 15-09-2018 11:03pm

jmcc wrote: »

It raises the problem of Higgins being the RTE president. It will damage the legitimacy of his 2011 election and the electorate does not like being taken for fools.

Regards...jmcc

Still six weeks to go, however, so even in the event there was a slight impact, it wouldn't suffice to sustain an entire campaign cycle.

Henryhill2 · 15-09-2018 11:04pm

jmcc wrote: »

It raises the problem of Higgins being the RTE president. It will damage the legitimacy of his 2011 election and the electorate does not like being taken for fools.

Regards...jmcc

Nonsense

batgoat · 15-09-2018 11:04pm

jmcc wrote: »

It raises the problem of Higgins being the RTE president. It will damage the legitimacy of his 2011 election and the electorate does not like being taken for fools.

Regards...jmcc

Since Higgins has done a good job as president, you've been saying that would kill his prospects for ages. So far no impact. The public were well aware that rte misreported with tweet etc and that RTE paid out to Gallagher.

FrancieBrady · 15-09-2018 11:07pm

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

O'Cuiv was the only FF person to express an interest, and he'd have struggled to reach double digit percentages.

You can be sure they did their own polling/research and saw those figures for Higgins.

blackwhite · 15-09-2018 11:11pm

jmcc wrote: »

It raises the problem of Higgins being the RTE president. It will damage the legitimacy of his 2011 election and the electorate does not like being taken for fools.

Regards...jmcc

This seems like you repeatedly stating what you hope will happen, despite there being zero indication, commentator, or any of the other candidates making such a claim

pixelburp · 15-09-2018 11:13pm

So while one poll is far from definitive, I should hope this torpedos the flimsy narrative of a seething public enraged over Higgins "lying" about a 2nd term, while implying some dirt by association through RTÉ's ineptitude in 2011 is clutching at straws. Leads tend to dwindle as campaigns mature, but that's a pretty spectacular difference - reignites the whole need for this election in the first place.

blackwhite · 15-09-2018 11:16pm

pixelburp wrote: »

So while one poll is far from definitive, I should hope this torpedos the flimsy narrative of a seething public enraged over Higgins "lying" about a 2nd term, while implying some dirt by association through RTÉ's ineptitude in 2011 is clutching at straws. Leads tend to dwindle as campaigns mature, but that's a pretty spectacular difference - reignites the whole need for this election in the first place.

Sure the polls are obviously being manipulated because Higgins is the media/RTÉ/FG/FF/LAB/lizard people candidate, and it couldn’t possibly be because the majority of people think he’s doing a half-decent job

Loafing Oaf · 15-09-2018 11:37pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Interesting that neither her nor Adi Roche ever gained much traction in their respective presidential races, and Joan Freeman doesn't seem to be this time either.

Not much 'seems' about it after that poll. Very bad poll for SF too, not even in the running for second on those figures. Wonder will they be desperately seeking a celeb candidate like Frances Black or Robert Ballagh at the last minute...

marieholmfan · 16-09-2018 7:01am

jmcc wrote: »

It raises the problem of Higgins being the RTE president. It will damage the legitimacy of his 2011 election and the electorate does not like being taken for fools.

Regards...jmcc

Absolute nonsense. Gallagher attempted to deceive the people of Ireland about just how deeply he was dug in to Fianna Fail . He proved unable to think on his feet and was caught in a 'which lie did I tell' moment like a rabbit in the headlines.

expectationlost · 16-09-2018 9:48am

heres the article its just the producer Michael Hughes trying to absolve himself of blame and shift it to the Ken O'Shea editor https://www.businesspost.ie/news/behind-frontline-presidential-debate-425631

interesting to read this article from way back about how Ken O'Shea had no direct access to PK https://www.herald.ie/news/rte-chief-in-tweetgate-is-scapegoat-for-scandal-pals-28003061.html no but he apparently told his producer what to tell PK. anyway Ken O'shea subsequently was moved to RTE after the mission to prey screw up

Ken O'Shea is still working for RTE on rte2 https://www.linkedin.com/in/ken-o-shea-4018071/

pat kenny says RTE didn't reveal enough about what happened with the tweet in its reports
https://www.businesspost.ie/news/behind-the-frontline-425599

nothing about the general unfairness referred to in the sindo last week, that might be more interesting

alaimacerc · 16-09-2018 10:19am

jmcc wrote: »

As I've said repeatedly [...]

That's putting it mildly.

FrancieBrady · 16-09-2018 11:30am

Has Higgins actually said he won't do or limit debates or is this just a cheap shot at creating a perception that he won't or is running scared?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/sean-gallagher-no-presidential-election-debates-if-michael-d-higgins-wont-join-in-shzl9xz5b?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1537058600

Beechwoodspark · 16-09-2018 11:34am

Sean g hasn’t a hope.

All any of his opponents have to do is raise the issue of him collecting envelopes on behalf of ff

And that’s all they have to do to turn ppl away from him.

So Michael D IS running again!

Comments