kuang1 wrote: » For the first time since turning 18, I will not be evercising my right to vote. Taking 20 minutes out of my Friday to contribute to this is not something I can justify. I've rearranged work schedules and babysitters etc in the past to facilitate me using my vote, it's normally something I feel quite strongly (patriotic?) about, but this drivel is a stretch too far. The amendment tempted me slightly, but that could end up being a record breaking % outcome. And as for "oh if everyone thought like that then there might be a surprise outcome... You should always use your vote..." I'd normally agree. Just doesn't apply this time round.
Squidgy Black wrote: » I mean, everyone in America said the same about their Presidential election.
kuang1 wrote: » Easy go-to argument. They weren't predicting 80% outcomes in advance.
Squidgy Black wrote: » Not really arguing, just saying. And plenty were predicting Hilary to have a 70%+ outcome.
Buer wrote: » I'm pretty sure 70% would have been the widest margin of victory in the history of the POTUS by a huge distance. Polls had the election tipped for Clinton in advance but nothing close to 70%. The pre-election polls had her ahead by single digit percentage points at best.
[Deleted User] wrote: » A low turnout sends it's own kind of message though. Some elections lack importance whilst others can be quite literally life and death. I don't view my vote in the context of how important the issue is to me, I view my vote in the context of how important it is that I have a vote to begin with. From my perspective voting is a part of the agreement that we all have collectively within society so I'd very strongly encourage you to go and vote simply because your franchise is still important even if the subject matter is not.
kuang1 wrote: » Like Buer, I also considered spoiling my vote. I've never done that before. But as you said, low turnout does make it's own statement. That's the one I'm weighing in behind. You're often quite definite on your stances and you've clearly put proper thought into them. You articulate them well. This particular one is a bit too idyllic for me to back you up on though.
Rigor Mortis wrote: » I cant get behind this. Not least because there is a referendum on the same day. The legitimacy of the office of the President is important. As is the publics say in determining the content of our Constitution. It's 20 minutes. It happens on average once every 18 months or so. We all have commitments but not giving enough of a damn isnt a commitment.
Buer wrote: » People need to realise there is a significant element of society who agree with those sentiments. But, given they're not as acceptable publicly, they will not state them outwardly by and large. If Casey gives them a vehicle to hitch their opinions to, they will. I am always taken aback by the fact that people are taken aback by such opinions. Not everyone will share the same ideas or thoughts. They'll have had different experiences that shape their views on the world. Fortunately, we live in a fairly liberal society so even those who are right wing (by Irish definition) would be viewed as blatant left wing supporters elsewhere in the world. I was at Dave Chapelle and Jon Stewart last night and I thought it was interesting when someone asked for Chapelle's views on Trump. He said he's fairly sure he'll get a second term. There was a collective intake of breath from the audience and murmuring of disapproval at such a thought. It was as if they associate Chapelle stating such a thing as somehow endorsing Trump. But he hit the nail on the head. He said the Democrats still haven't figured out any way to damage him or his support base after 2 years in office and, as the incumbent, he's in the driving seat. Power begets power. It struck me as relevant in terms of how people view Peter Casey and the confirmation bias bubble that some people tend to exist in. Just because I/you don't agree with his views, doesn't mean there aren't many who do. For the record, Casey doesn't have a sniff of getting into the Aras but he's definitely running a better campaign than 2 or 3 others at this point despite probably having the lowest public profile of any candidate before the nominations.
Buer wrote: » He could go to Ibiza for the next 8 days and be photographed doing shots and yokes before returning home to be sworn in with a minimum of 50% of the vote. It's the most pointless election in my life time. It's nicely being run hand in hand with the most pointless referendum in our time too.
Buer wrote: » He could go to Ibiza for the next 8 days and be photographed doing shots and yokes before returning home to be sworn in with a minimum of 50% of the vote.
CatFromHue wrote: » Higgins got 40% 1st preference last time, Gallagher 29%. It finished overall Higgins 57% and Gallagher 36%. Considering what scuppered Gallagher big time last time has turned out to be false I don't think Higgins is going to romp it home. I don't think Gallagher will be the only competition, Freeman and Duffy could do well.
CatFromHue wrote: » Maybe so but I don't think Higgins is as loved as people think he is. He's also 77
irishbucsfan wrote: » Sounds like Peter Casey is gone anyway. Bye now, best of luck.
Squidgy Black wrote: » I don't know why he'd drop out a week before the polling stations open.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6081e4655739e0887aaf16222f88b015.svg)
