Presidential Election 2025

It isn't a very good argument for voting for a candidate. Neither of them have any experience of being president. For floating voters, it may come down to voting for who can do the job competently.

The questions were about Heather's record in government.

Every person will have their own reasons - for some it’s as simple as to what degree they like the cut of their jib- it’s all valid as simply we all have 1 vote .

Neither candidate sets the world on fire for me - I’m latching on to HH’s background as a person who could make progress with the wider Protestant community both in ROI and NI and help progress unity of people as opposed to a united ireland which I believe it’s decades away yet

Being genuinely honest;

I dont think this conversation RE the SOR is entirely relevant anymore. We can get into hypotheticals of whether or not someone has been rehabilitated; Connolly critics can point to it taking 24 hours for her to reach the only logical conclusion re employing a rapist at the Aras. And that is a valid criticism.

However CC did, finally, walk back one of her obvious unforced errors. That being that she would have to think about whether to employ this type of person at the Aras. And I do honestly have to commend her for that, despite it taking longer than it should have.

What does genuinely baffle me is why she seems incapable of walking back all of her other controversies

• Why not roll back on the Eirigi story? Simply say that, yes, she believes in rehabilitation, and the lady in question seemed qualified in that sense, as well as with regard to the position in Leinster House. But that, on mature reflection she understands why it seems controversial - perhaps going as far as to say - the ladys obvious extremist past may not have been 'fully apparent' to her, or she didnt consider it through a more public lens.
• Why not roll back the Germany Comments? - CC could state clearly that, she worries about re-arming, as being antithetical to the cause of peace. But also acknowledge the changing nature of the world, the emergence of obvious bad actors - and how there are arguments for and against re-arming. She could then simply state that a comparison to the 1930s was not 'meant to be taken as literally as it has been'; (bending over backwards here)
• RE the Syria trip; She could state that the conflict in Syria was of deep concern to her, and that she believed a field trip was warranted. She could acknowledge that the optics of this may not have been as positive as she intended. And that, on reflection, it may not have been totally appropriate to charge the costs of the trip to her expense account - she could even offer to cover the costs, it wouldnt be a huge financial burden to her

Im bending over backwards to get the wording above correct. Im trying to 'maintain' her positions, while simultaneously rolling them back 'a few inches'. It would demonstrate political savvy, and a willingness to appeal more broadly.

Id ask the question to her obvious supporters here; would any of the above damage your opinion of CC, and do you even partially see the benefit of this slight softening on her part?

Its not that she isnt entitled to her opinions. Its that she needs to parse them for public consumption both her and abroad. We dont need situations where German ambassadors feel the need to comment publically on our presidential election.

 Connolly critics can point to it taking 24 hours for her to reach the only logical conclusion re employing a rapist at the Aras. And that is a valid criticism.

However CC did, finally, walk back one of her obvious unforced errors.

This is a wrong take and renders the rest of your post irrelevant.

She did not walk back an inch. She explained that her comment was in relation to rehabilitation and that 'having to reflect' was in relation to considering somebody who had raped but had successfully rehabilitated themselves.

I.E. she was saying the sensationalists like J.C. MacNeill had gotten what she said totally wrong.

The conversation with Cuddihy had nothing to do with somebody on the Sex Offenders list. Go listen to it, it is not a very long section. The conversation was about rehabilitation and in that context she said she would have to reflect on the case, as each case would be different.

@FrancieBrady leaving aside, for a moment at least, the above 'discussion' - do you see any benefit in CC merely rephrasing her positions on some of the more contentious opinions she has given? The words used have meaning, and it simply defuses some of the talking points. Even concentrating on the German question if you want, merely rephrasing the opinion would be worth something, would it not?

If she needs to clarify she seems more than willing to do that. But she is not willing to make her views more palatable to some in order just to win votes which contrasts with somebody who is working from scripted answers and wary of going off the reservation.

Paddy Power also do their own opinion polling and sometimes publish them for GEs. It used to use RedC though I am not sure if they still use it. It is good publicity. The HRC payout was not the mistake that people here think. The Trump win was very close. He won the Electoral College vote but lost the popular vote. Only a few people really understood why Trump had changed from being an also-ran in September/October 2016 to a possible winner.

The exact point was when Trump didn't get out of HRC's way in the town hall debate when she walked into his personal space. That's when people started to think of Trump as presidential. It is a kind of alpha male thing. Presidents don't have to move. Trump's Big Data game was much more proficient due to Cambridge Analytica. In this election, the first debate was that kind of a moment for the Irish electorate when they got to see Connolly debate without the filter of the legacy media to tell people what to think. Much of human communications is non-verbal and that is critical in an election. Body language matters.

Connolly managed to appear presidential and that's the biggest hurdle, after brand awareness, for a candidate. The legacy media had been trying to smear Connolly with the Syria story and associate her with Wallace and Daly. The legacy media had a credibility crisis when the electorate got to see Connolly perform in that debate. So far, she has been much better than Humphreys.

In some respects, McGuinness was the Joe Biden of this election (dropping out on medical grounds). Humphreys is quickly becoming the Kamala Harris candidate. Kamala Harris had a lot of fans in the media and Trump won overwhelmingly (Electoral College and popular vote) in 2024. The problem now for FG is if there is a surge in votes from people who see Connolly as the anti-FFG and anti-establishment candidate. The younger demographics, where the SocDems and SF are stronger than FF and FG, could be crucial.

In recent times, debates decide elections. The 2011 presidential election when RTE used the fake tweet stopped Gallagher from winning and his use of the word "envelope" instantly killed his campaign. The 2024 Biden/Trump debate was a horror show that finished Biden.

The first debate in this Irish presidential campaign changed Connolly from an also-ran to frontrunner and finished Gavin. The second debate, the TWIP debate, was mediocre and more of a boring chatshow than a debate. Connolly was still better than the other two. It was clear that Gavin didn't want to be there and had probably already made the decision to drop out (or it was made for him).

The RTE Radio 1 debate showed that Connolly was more than just soundbites and showed that Humphreys had a set of rehearsed soundbites. When Humphreys was forced to go off the soundbites, (the Austerity question) she became less certain. There doesn't seem to be much movement on any of the other bookies and the RTE Radio 1 debate hasn't changed anything.

How many is that? Which countries do you speak of? The industry is based on military needs. If there are aggressors, and there are, then they are going to arm themselves in preparedness at all times. It is fundamentally important that peace loving nations are armed to be at least capable of defence in case of an aggressive attack. If you think otherwise then fundamentally you are allowing countries like Russia, China, North Korea, even the US, who are all capable of taking over countries and areas free rein to achieve their goals. This is where CC is very flawed. Unfortunately the world isn't full of peace-loving hymn singers. There aren't that many capable of it, but there are enough to pose that threat that needs to be countered and known to be ready to counter it.

Yea thats fair.

Il be curious about the next poll, to see the impact of Jim Gavins withdrawal, and the last week of the campaigning.

It could be that Gavin splits slightly in favour of HH, but also adds to the spoiled voters tally. Which would probably elect CC, depending on the final amounts. I dont see the Gavin For Protest vote gaining much traction. McGuirk et al have dropped it entirely, preferring instead to promote a 'spoil your vote, for Steen' platform. Doubtless they will claim that every spoiled vote reflects support for Steen, which is nonsense.

If anyone has any ideas on when we can expect another poll, id love to know

If The Ditch got it wrong, then it should issue a correction and an update.