Presidential Election 2025

Until you have some idea of whether Connolly ever actually sat on the Presidential Commission, I'm not sure looking for comparison figures is a great idea.

The Council of State met twice in that period.

I am not expressing any opinion on comparing the value of either, but I suspect the reply is going to entirely focus on that!

If you have the info, why are you asking other people?

Have you found any evidence that the Presidential Commission sat with Connolly on it yet?

You are making the comparison, not me. You are claiming one side is superior. I have expressed no opinion on that.

I just suspect that one side doesn't actually exist, and that Connolly never sat on the Presidential Commission. If it turns out she did, I was wrong.

The other poster is obsessed with how often the Council of State sat, and is making comparisons based off that, though.

If knowing that you may be needed to sit on one ensures you gain experience, knowing that you may be needed to sit on the other would too. Never mind adding that it actually did sit.

Their core argument is about how rarely the CoS sat, but they can't prove the PC ever sat with Connolly on it

Heenan is effusive in her praise of Higgins as President and Connolly I think is a supporter of his term and would be out of the same human rights based mould.
If both of them can tap into the popularity of Higgins and how he conducted his terms of office, it will stand to them.

Nobody has come back to say it was an experience they weren't expecting.

You simply can't find any evidence that the Commission ever actually sat with Connolly on it, can you?

I don't think I can explain the requirement to actually do that one more time without losing my mind, as it has been two days of talking to a wall so far. So I'm leaving it here - everyone else can see that you haven't got any evidence that Connolly ever actually sat on the Presidential Commission, a body which only sits when required to.

Members of both bodies have to be prepared to sit.

It doesn't give her a decent shot.

She will still come third, most likely, but she is going to be shredded in the campaign. I hope she is prepared for that.

As for Heenan, no better woman to fight her own campaign - if indeed she is nominated. She is a distinguished political and societal expert, a former advisor to the OFMDFM at Stormont etc, and as for the Council of State, its not crucial, but better to have been on it than not been on it.

The leftist interests in Ireland couldn't agree the time of day. Never have in a hundred years.

And whatever else you are, I don't actually think you're that naive.

She couldn't even get control of the Dáil when she deputised in the Chair. They just ignored her.

She is lacklustre and no good in cut and thrust with a lot going on. Mairéad McGuinness will have her on toast.

Mairéad V Mary Lou is where the real fight would be, but the longer this goes on, the more divided the field gets, and the greater the jeopardy for Sinn Féin becomes, the less likely it is for me that MLMD runs.

Because as many commentators are saying, she doesn't just get to run for president as Sinn Féin leader, lose the election, and then just go back to leading the opposition in the Dáil. Its simply not tenable.

No, because people who want to take over as Uachtarán Shinn Féin say so.

Patience has worn more than a little thin with the leader who has underachieved so badly in five elections now. She isn't going to be let have her cake and eat it too, come October.

Mairead McGuinness Achilles heel will be that she's not just the blue shirts candidate but will also be seen as representing the sitting government. With the constantly rising cost of living, deteriorating health service, housing/homelessness, out of control illegal migration etc. etc. - she'll end up in third place. Of course the president has nothing whatsoever to do will the ills of the country …..but someone has to get a kicking from the electorate and her posterior will be seriously exposed.

If SF and FF join the race you are going to get a vote on the government. This is largely a mid-term election, many will realise that its likely that the next elections will not be for another 4 years. They don't have a figure like Micheal D Higgins, and there is no real continuation candidate so far.

If it is just a case of nominating the best, then any FG TD not nominating Mairead McGuiness should be able to sign the nomination forms of someone they think is more suitable, you can be guaranteed that no surplus FG members will be signing someone else's nomination papers.

To suggest that MDH was not a left wing / Labour Party President is absurd. From his initial nomination to his speeches he was massively to the left.

It largely doesn't matter of the people that go up for election they will all will largely do the same job as president, but that doesn't make them any less political.

Otherwise why bother with an election?

BTW I would worry massive, in such a situation the president will either be an SF/FG/FF candidate. There as been no real change to the polls, all are at 20%.

Which ones, the last two were landslides with only one sitting political party asking for a NO/NO vote the rest all asked for YES / YES. The people voted out The Green Party.