So Michael D IS running again!

Andrew Beef wrote: »

unconventional lifestyles.

Andrew Beef wrote: »

the more lurid rumours regarding President Higgins’ private life

the “family man” image that he presents.

You appear to keep saying these things you're not saying.

Andrew Beef

My sense is that the media are waiting to sink Higgins at the right time.

I might stick a few quid on Gallagher.

Leo Varadkar’s rise to the top has shown us that people no longer look down their noses at unconventional lifestyles.

However, if hypocrisy and misuse of State resources were uncovered, that could be fatal for any candidate.

Andrew Beef wrote: »

My own sense is that it won’t be the more lurid rumours regarding President Higgins’ private life that sink his campaign; it’ll probably be stories around the abuse of public money in terms of expensive hotels etc. And perhaps people seeing hypocrisy in his form of socialism and the “family man” image that he presents.

Won't be; will? Sounds like another one of those non-prediction predictions we keep seeing in this thread.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Higgins 1/6

Nearest rival 5/1 (gallagher)

For the sake of completeness, Paddy Power will effectively give you 7/2 "bar". So if they're any judge of the true odds -- or if their book reflects any "wisdom of crowds" on the part of the punters -- factoring in the overround, that'd be something like an 80% chance of MDH winning.

That's far from certain, but in terms of racing certainties, not all that much of a race, either.

Zubeneschamali

Andrew Beef wrote: »

My own sense is that it won’t be the more lurid rumours regarding President Higgins’ private life that sink his campaign; it’ll probably be stories around the abuse of public money in terms of expensive hotels etc

Higgins 1/6

Nearest rival 5/1 (gallagher)

Nothing is going to sink Higgins campaign bar some medical disater.

starlit

He has a fairly clean background so no harm in voting for him. I've only two in mind i'd vote for.

Andrew Beef

My own sense is that it won’t be the more lurid rumours regarding President Higgins’ private life that sink his campaign; it’ll probably be stories around the abuse of public money in terms of expensive hotels etc. And perhaps people seeing hypocrisy in his form of socialism and the “family man” image that he presents.

batgoat wrote: »

And politicians have far more resources to investigate the credibility of such claims. They should not be contributing to an uninformed fear campaign.

A perfect politician. Such a rare thing! She raised concerns about the lack of clarity in the information available. The HSE responded by launching a special awareness campaign. Why would they have had to do that if the information was clear from the start. A simple pointer to the info would have sufficed.
Is it the first time the HSE has been remiss in the fullfilling of it's duties and responsibilities?

How about those calling her an anti-vaxxer doing a bit of 'investigating' and demonstrating that there is even a shred of evidence that she is? It is pretty clear from their inability to do that that they are 'contributing' to a smear campaign.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If they manage to elect representatives then as a democrat I couldn't object.
Are you who so recently got upset by the use of the word 'republican' suggesting we should be barring people with a mandate? :eek:

The issue isn't one of "objecting" to or "barring" the democratic process, as the part where you cheerlead for candidates with particular views, and parties giving them the platform to propound them.

Royal Legend

VonZan wrote: »

At this point my vote will simply be based on the cost to the taxpayer and I'll vote for Michael D but the candidates are appalling. Thankfully the Irish presidency is nothing more than a meaningless title.

We have an anti-vaxxer, a champagne socialist and a couple of former dragons. What an embarrassment to the state.

I take it that you are referencing Higgins

batgoat

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It wasn't a 'conspiracy theory' to those who believed it to be (rightly or wrongly) a health concern.

I doubt you have forgotten having young children or you would be aware of heightened concerns when they are new and young.

But then actual reality never seems to impinge on the ideal world you think everyone lives in or that 'shinners' should be living in.

I do agree with you, as said earlier, that Ni Riadha would be better of staying as a vocal representative than becoming president at this point in her public service. That is why I won't be giving her my No. 1.

And politicians have far more resources to investigate the credibility of such claims. They should not be contributing to an uninformed fear campaign.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Do you think we should have flat earthers and creationists in the Dail?

If they manage to elect representatives then as a democrat I couldn't object.
Are you who so recently got upset by the use of the word 'republican' suggesting we should be barring people with a mandate? :eek:

blanch152 wrote: »

People with conspiracy theory concerns should be unrepresented.

However, even if you accept your theory in principle, that all with concerns should be represented, it gives us a good measurement of leadership capacity. Those people with the ability to see through conspiracy theories and anti-scientific junk have leadership capability. Those who don't have that ability to sort rubbish from reality do not have leadership capability.

Your defence of Ni Riadh in effect proves that she should not be a candidate to be President.

It wasn't a 'conspiracy theory' to those who believed it to be (rightly or wrongly) a health concern.

I doubt you have forgotten having young children or you would be aware of heightened concerns when they are new and young.

But then actual reality never seems to impinge on the ideal world you think everyone lives in or that 'shinners' should be living in.

I do agree with you, as said earlier, that Ni Riadha would be better of staying as a vocal representative than becoming president at this point in her public service. That is why I won't be giving her my No. 1.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Very good. Do you normally advocate that people with concerns should be unrepresented?

There was a clear campaign by anti-vaxx groups on social media at the time. This led to many people not knowing what to believe. The citizens of the country are not all blessed with the certainty of posters like blanch152, that is the reality.
Those who voiced their concerns about the availability and clarity of the information available are now characterised as being ant-vaxx. :rolleyes: Quelle suprise!

A pointedly ridiculous assumption tbh, and political opportunism at it's most sinister and desperate levels. It is notable that those who are promoting this narrative on here are died in the wool anti-all things republican. They will do their level best to keep this conspiracy theory going though.

People with conspiracy theory concerns should be unrepresented.

However, even if you accept your theory in principle, that all with concerns should be represented, it gives us a good measurement of leadership capacity. Those people with the ability to see through conspiracy theories and anti-scientific junk have leadership capability. Those who don't have that ability to sort rubbish from reality do not have leadership capability.

Your defence of Ni Riadh in effect proves that she should not be a candidate to be President.

Hotblack Desiato

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Very good. Do you normally advocate that people with concerns should be unrepresented?

Do you think we should have flat earthers and creationists in the Dail?

There was a clear campaign by anti-vaxx groups on social media at the time. This led to many people not knowing what to believe.

Yes, and they weren't helped by politicians spouting nonsense who should have known better. Shameful carry-on, but anything for a vote, eh?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Technically they're all "minority groupings". SF's is the 5th largest -- or if you prefer, 5th smallest! -- of nine.

Apparently Ming's in the same group these days. I'd say he's politically all over the shop, only that'd be unfair to the average all-over-the-shop stroke-pulling politician.

Ming is completely irrelevant in European politics, but he could still manage to hold the seat next time. People will still vote for populist nonsense.
What happened to his presidential ambitions this time around? A lot of his supporters were talking in terms of taking a run at it this time. Or maybe he's not such an idiot as he makes out?

eastwest wrote: »

Sinn fein belongs to a minority grouping in the EP, and has pretty much zero influence in Europe as a result. The Dail is the big prize.

Technically they're all "minority groupings". SF's is the 5th largest -- or if you prefer, 5th smallest! -- of nine.

Apparently Ming's in the same group these days. I'd say he's politically all over the shop, only that'd be unfair to the average all-over-the-shop stroke-pulling politician.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Having seen people out of the world and into it in our health system, I basically wouldn't trust a word the HSE say.

Yeah, but Ni Riada isn't trying to go quite that hard on the Vast Establishment Conspiracy line. That was more Gemma O'Doherty's pitch. (And said conspiracy silenced her campaign, obvs.)

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Whether she believes the anti-vax blather or not, she tried to make poltiical gain out of anti-vax "concerns", which is even worse IMHO.

And then tried to have it both ways by back-tracking on her "concerns", but hiding behind the family medical privacy line... having volunteered private family medical information on that exact issue in the first place.

Are SF that limited in the number of "clean skins" they can find that they had to pick her?

Any SF candidate has no chance of winning anyway so it doesn't matter.

SF aren't in it to win it, though, otherwise they'd have "volunteered" someone more senior and higher-profile. None of the TDs even seemed to get a mention, just which of the MEPs would have their arm twisted. They just want to "advance the project" by running as non-SF-brand campaign as they can, so they can then say "look, we're transfer-friendly now, and we've increased our vote share once more!"

rossie1977 wrote: »

When was the last time an Irish president failed to gain a second term when they put themselves forward for one?

Never, but it's also a remarkably small sample size: there's been an election in such circumstances only once before. And it was a 10,000-vote squeaker, at that.

(Or if you want to be especially picky, never, if you understand the above as implying "when a sitting president nominates themself to stand again".)

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

If people have concerns, they should be based entirely on scientific evidence, rather than on emotion-derived hearsay - even before the Regret campaign group rose to prominence, the Catholic freesheet Alive was running similar scare stories based on the claims of US groups, and heavily implying that the availability of the HPV vaccine would promote teenage promiscuity.

I get what you are saying but it applies to an ideal world rather than the real world.
Having seen people out of the world and into it in our health system, I basically wouldn't trust a word the HSE say.
And that climate does exist in this country whether people wish to deny it or not.
It was into this climate that the doubts about the vaccine were sown, they took root and had to be dealt with.

If Ni Riada is an anti-vaxxer because she, in her public representative role, responded to concerns are the HSE anti-vaxxers too because they also responded in their role?

rossie1977

When was the last time an Irish president failed to gain a second term when they put themselves forward for one?

Higgins has done nothing crazy so far to suggest he won't win re-election. Its a ceremonial role and Higgins has represented Ireland well over the past 7 years.

An Ciarraioch

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Whether she believes the anti-vax blather or not, she tried to make poltiical gain out of anti-vax "concerns", which is even worse IMHO.

Are SF that limited in the number of "clean skins" they can find that they had to pick her?

Any SF candidate has no chance of winning anyway so it doesn't matter.

Very good. Do you normally advocate that people with concerns should be unrepresented?

There was a clear campaign by anti-vaxx groups on social media at the time. This led to many people not knowing what to believe. The citizens of the country are not all blessed with the certainty of posters like blanch152, that is the reality.
Those who voiced their concerns about the availability and clarity of the information available are now characterised as being ant-vaxx. :rolleyes: Quelle suprise!

A pointedly ridiculous assumption tbh, and political opportunism at it's most sinister and desperate levels. It is notable that those who are promoting this narrative on here are died in the wool anti-all things republican. They will do their level best to keep this conspiracy theory going though.

If people have concerns, they should be based entirely on scientific evidence, rather than on emotion-derived hearsay - even before the Regret campaign group rose to prominence, the Catholic freesheet Alive was running similar scare stories based on the claims of US groups, and heavily implying that the availability of the HPV vaccine would promote teenage promiscuity.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Very good. Do you normally advocate that people with concerns should be unrepresented?

There was a clear campaign by anti-vaxx groups on social media at the time. This led to many people not knowing what to believe. The citizens of the country are not all blessed with the certainty of posters like blanch152, that is the reality.
Those who voiced their concerns about the availability and clarity of the information available are now characterised as being ant-vaxx. :rolleyes: Quelle suprise!

A pointedly ridiculous assumption tbh, and political opportunism at it's most sinister and desperate levels. It is notable that those who are promoting this narrative on here are died in the wool anti-all things republican. They will do their level best to keep this conspiracy theory going though.

NI riada belongs to a party that is anti all things republican, unless you count the Christian brothers history book 1950s version of waving flags and crucifixes while hating all things English.

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Higgins' poll rating can only fall from the heights of three weeks ago - the only question being whether any frontrunner will emerge from the pack, or whether any gains would be equally shared between Ní Ríada and Gallagher, given they would generally be considered the main challengers.

Is there a poll out tomorrow? Very quiet campaign so far tbh.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Whether she believes the anti-vax blather or not, she tried to make poltiical gain out of anti-vax "concerns", which is even worse IMHO.

Are SF that limited in the number of "clean skins" they can find that they had to pick her?

Any SF candidate has no chance of winning anyway so it doesn't matter.

Very good. Do you normally advocate that people with concerns should be unrepresented?

There was a clear campaign by anti-vaxx groups on social media at the time. This led to many people not knowing what to believe. The citizens of the country are not all blessed with the certainty of posters like blanch152, that is the reality.
Those who voiced their concerns about the availability and clarity of the information available are now characterised as being ant-vaxx. :rolleyes: Quelle suprise!

A pointedly ridiculous assumption tbh, and political opportunism at it's most sinister and desperate levels. It is notable that those who are promoting this narrative on here are died in the wool anti-all things republican. They will do their level best to keep this conspiracy theory going though.

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Higgins' poll rating can only fall from the heights of three weeks ago - the only question being whether any frontrunner will emerge from the pack, or whether any gains would be equally shared between Ní Ríada and Gallagher, given they would generally be considered the main challengers.

Gallagher is the only realistic challenger IMHO. Ni riada seems to be running just to build up a vote in her own area to try to take a Dail seat in the next election.
Sinn fein belongs to a minority grouping in the EP, and has pretty much zero influence in Europe as a result. The Dail is the big prize.

An Ciarraioch

Higgins' poll rating can only fall from the heights of three weeks ago - the only question being whether any frontrunner will emerge from the pack, or whether any gains would be equally shared between Ní Ríada and Gallagher, given they would generally be considered the main challengers.

Hotblack Desiato

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The desperate attempt here to make Ni Riada an out and out anti-vaxxer gives the lie to that ^.

Whether she believes the anti-vax blather or not, she tried to make poltiical gain out of anti-vax "concerns", which is even worse IMHO.

Are SF that limited in the number of "clean skins" they can find that they had to pick her?

Any SF candidate has no chance of winning anyway so it doesn't matter.

utmbuilder wrote: »

are we just to take it now that Sean Gallaher is a FF man?

FF is a joke of a party

Pro choice and anti choice at the same time

Pro Higgins and pro Gallagher at the same time

The "leader" has no authority over his own party.

He'll be fecked out after the next election and replaced with some rural hick candidate. The parliamentary party will be delighted, and FF will again be toxic to anyone under 60 or living in an urban area. So win-win