Presidential Election 2025

Id actually like to see some breaking of ranks on this story. Id say some on the FG side of the fence know that aside from being counterproductive, this smear is utterly pointless. The election is over bar the shouting. FG and FF have lost, its done. I wouldnt bet against someone, realizing this, and speaking out. They could receive a slap from Harris, but they would gain respect for standing up to this nonsense.

If HH wanted to do so, that would be unprecidented, but its unlikely to happen. She may be uncomfortable, but she will tow the line im sure.

I'll be interested to see how this plays out, and who promotes the smear - and who remains silent or breaks ranks.

No, it wouldn't.

If you have a ballot paper and your first pref was Jim Gavin, and you marked X beside him and your second pref was Heather Humphreys, and you marked X beside her, the ballot is invalid (spoiled) because there is no clear intention of order of preference.

If, however, you had only one preference only, Jim Gavin, and you marked X beside him and nothing else, then your intention is clear, and Gavin would get a number 1 counted from you, with the ballot not proceeding to continuing count.

Those sort of ballots often go into 'doubtful' on initial sorting, but are quickly verified back into the count once the returning officer and the agents for all candidates get a look at them.

I think it will be in the post mortem period that FG will suffer most for this tactic. As you can see here too many have their fingers crossed that it might work. If it doesn't the recriminations will be good to watch.

One interesting nugget last night was the video was posted by FG on their twitter and not the campaign page.

That could mean that the campaign team have been pushed aside in the final week and would explain the shift in tactics.

Representing them strongly? You mean doing her job competently?

Do we know the name of the banks involved or how many of them took the properties?

Again, the issue that she won't state who she represented in open public court.

If it were "open public court" she won't need to, you can look it up yourself (or FG/HH could)

The fact that you cannot look it up indicates it was not an open court? And there may be confidentiality at play?

Can I ask everyone against CC on this, who exactly do you expect to represent the banks in our justice system, do you think there are Barristers out there that would only love to evict some poor families from their homes, that have been waiting for this opportunity?

It seems posters want anyone who took a controversial case to be dammed for life after…and that is why barristers need to take such cases and be impartial (Unless there is a DIRECT conflict of interest, not that you just don't like to see homeless people (Which should be everyone)….

It's not very open or public if it can't be independently verified. And if it can be then there's no need for her to state anything. In any case I don't see how it matters. Jim O Callaghan and Willie O Dea were both barristers before they went into politics and I'd be surprised if they didn't work with some of the biggest slime bags in history during that time.

Nobody seems to care much about them though, and nor should we really be caring about who our next president represented at the time

I accept that we are going slightly off topic here but as a non-FG voter and somebody who regularly looks in at their politics from the outside

• 2024 General Election: I think Simons constant attacks on Israel were seen as hypocritical given his record in healthcare.
• 2024 European Election: Polls were not far off.
• 2020 General Election: The SF rise affected a lot of the FG vote.
• 2019 European Election: Can't quite remember these elections, sorry.
• 2016 General Election: This was towards the end of the FG/Labour coalition and water charges were still an issue. FF stated coming up to the election that they would abolish the water charges and refund anybody that already paid them
• 2014 European Election: Mid-way through an election cycle, government unpopular
• 2011 Presidential Election: Who even was the FG candidate? If memory serves it as some MEP that only a third of the country would previously have heard of? That campaign had Sean Gallagher out in front until he was outed for dirty dealings a few days before polling. FG were largely blamed for the recent pension tax and the household charge was largely touted with Labour seen as the party "keeping an eye on FG" so once the IND FF candidate was kicked to touch the next in line was obvious
• 2011 General Election: Got an expected boost from a voting pact with Labour.

I deliberately tried to expand on the 2011 presidential election to try and keep the thread on topic as best I can. I'd also add the 2018 election they didn't have a chance at so backed the winning horse from the get go

It's certainly a recurring theme in multiple elections. Particularly in the Varadkar & Harris years I get the sense that the party is deeply out of touch with the electorate but always confidently feel they have their finger on the pulse of the nation. They seem to consistently follow American style campaigns on slogans and a focus on attacking their opponent which Irish people typically dislike.

As to why they never learn and repeat the same mistake? It stood out to me in 2020 when Varadkar's partner Matt was at a count centre overseeing a miserable FG performance and he was asked by the interviewer if he felt sorry for Leo as a leader watching so many of his colleagues lose seats and he replied with something to extent of "I don't feel sorry for Leo, I feel sorry for the Irish people". So maybe they really are arrogant enough to believe the fault is with the public making a mistake and not themselves or their campaign.

This election is really about getting your supporters out on the day. This is something both campaigns have failed to understand. Your not trying to convert anyone to your side you literally trying to get them to go out and vote. There is nothing really here for anyone.

Both will be respectable presidents at the end of the day.

What credibility would have given she's standing for a political party that's in government nearly 15 years?

“Gavin pulling out f*cked both parties”

Indeed- and even if people in high numbers vote Gavin #1, for those who vote #2, I believe CC is due to get 25-30% of these votes if memory serves from a newspaper article last week - HH would need a lot more support than that to win at this stage - CC voters will be the most enthusiastic to get out on the day-

I think if she did that she'd loose more votes than she would gain but it would certainly be a radical change of direction, and she is very clearly struggling for votes and clearly incapable of running a good campaign so it might be worth a shot.

Catherine Connolly and her supporting parties advocate for even more liberal structures when it comes to asylum and economic immigration.

But as we know, whatever candidate wins, neither would be have any role in that matter. Or any policy matter.

So, the presidency comes back to what it always does. Which ideology that is behind the candidates do you support?

Are you a political leftist, a person of endless protest and only having ideas that involve spending far more of other people's money?

Or are you a centrist / centre-right type, who believes in underpinning the economy first, being generally fiscally cautious while socially fairly liberal, pro-European and with a global outlook - with the warts and all of a long legacy.

And that is the key reason why Heather Humphreys is in this fight. The parties behind Catherine Connolly got about 35% of the vote in the general election 11 months ago. Thats where people's instincts really are.

Disappointed Jim Gavin supporters aren't going to vote for Connolly. Disenfranchised (their word) Maria Steen supporters aren't going to vote for Connolly. Some Gareth Sheridan types might, but he had margin of error support to begin with, so that cohort is included in the 35% anyway.

The vast majority of those pissed off at this whole farcical election simply won't vote. A lesser number again will vote for Humphreys as being closest to their unrepresented choice, and basically none will back Connolly.

So when you take away the turnout, the spoiled votes, the undecideds defaulting to Humphreys and those that still Vote No. 1 for Jim Gavin almost all transferring to Humphreys too, this is still a 50/50 scrap.