Presidential Election 2025

Heather Humphreys is stink rotten. Brutal presidential candidate. Is she hearing the questions differently from everyone else? Her "answers" go off on a completely different tangent.

Meh.

The Final Debate.

A poor debate that won’t change too many minds, this one was probably pre-ordained to be a shambles, thanks to the current news cycle and Fine Gael backed smear campaign. In the end it was probably what many expected. Both candidates have given this same performance before, and it was possible, for me at least, to accurately predict their answers as each topic came up.

Humphreys

This was an incredibly poor performance from Heather Humphreys. Her communication in the opening statement was deplorable, and was followed swiftly by her ludicrous attack on Connolly RE the Barrister/Repo smear. Where she should have scored points on foreign policy, HH instead sounded like someone who had ‘attempted’ to memorize talking points, but failed to reproduce them when the time came. Most of her offerings tonight were framed AGAINST Connolly, showing the poor state of her campaign; the desperation is now on display for all to see. HH almost sounds like an automaton at times. When speaking about fox hunting (a rural pursuit) and on the issue of the victim of a road traffic accident; she simply sticks to her preferred statements, all of which we have heard before. If Humphreys had a strong moment, it was the pushback she gave on the Eirigi Fiasco, but even then her responses seemed robotic and poorly delivered.

Connolly

Clearly the better communicator, Connolly handled the Barrister/Repo smear with real skill, and in my opinion, she successfully diffused it. On foreign policy I remain convinced that she has a flawed view of Europe, and the role it plays on the global stage. Connolly remains an activist first and foremost, and will invariably pivot a question on Europe, toward Gaza/Palestine, but voters will make their own mind up on this. Connolly’s weakest moment was on the topic of her Syria trip, and she repeatedly evaded answering the questions posed. We have all seen this before; Connolly refuses to accept or acknowledge the bad judgement she has displayed, in this case, and on several other noteworthy stories. She pivots the story of the Eirigi fiasco, on to the topic of rehabilitation, every time that it comes up; Connolly has always refused to discuss the details of this event, or how much background knowledge she had on the lady in question.

Conclusion

This was an embarrassing final debate. We have heard the same statements, time and again; we know that on many topics, Connolly evades giving clear answers, and invariably prefers to pivot toward more positive versions of events. Humphreys added yet more embarrassment to this debate, by engaging with the current Barrister/Repo smear.

If someone won this debate, then it was probably Catherine Connolly. Despite my misgivings on her Foreign Policy, I have to acknowledge that she is the better communicator. She also handled the attacks on her record as a barrister, with real skill, and successfully defused this IMHO.

If Humphreys had even a tiny chance, to gain some support, and remain competitive; She unequivocally failed to do this. In terms of her communication, tonight was the poorest performance I have seen. Her tired lines have become beyond boring, and her robotic delivery is atrocious.

Humphreys had many openings, but singularly failed to use them. Poor speaker for a former minister.

However, the riot favoured her, she had a reasonably clear proposition about needing some types of immigrants who can come legally but that illegals should be turfed out as soon as possible. Connolly's "Ireland of the Welcomes" was ambiguous by comparison.

Victim of traffic accident was more measured this time

Listen to tonight's debate again on that topic and you'll see she states this phrase no less than 4 times word for word:

"I'm sorry that I wasn't able to deliver what they wanted"

It's a clearly rehearsed phrase which replaces the one from previous debates which was (roughly):

"I'm sorry if she feels I didn't do enough"

They've obviously workshopped a better sounding answer for this one - especially since the woman herself said that "sorry if I feel something" is not an apology

This sounds better, but really is saying the same thing - it's like the "sorry if you're offended by my actions" response

Establishment politician with static responses that she doesn't deviate from

I was astonished to see her repeat it 4 times. For a question about personal judgment and responsibility she shirked the chance to give an actual heartfelt response in favour of repeating the perceived least damaging phrase over and over

Fox hunting with dogs is the very definition of "barbaric" and I'm not sure what it has to do with whatever else you've mentioned.

You might be unfair so to find out so that she won't be doing a whole lot as president. We will be voting for her on Friday and this time next year we will be trying to remember her name.

No doubt she's suited to the role mind

I agree that fox hunting for sport is barbaric, but in rural Ireland it's a divisive issue because of foxes attacking sheep.

Did anyone else get the feeling the moderators were not very impartial? On more than one occasion, after Connolly had answered a question, Humphreys was asked if she would like to respond, while the same opportunity wasn't given to Connolly?
I just got the feeling that HH was invited to attack CC a couple of times and I don't think CC was afforded the same opportunity. Cutting CC off for the ad break after barely getting a sentence out was very unprofessional as well.

Overall, I do have concerns about Catherine's views on Europe and the need for defence but I thought she handled herself very well and came across as polite, intelligent and eloquent which are desirable traits in a head of state.

I thought Heather was very poor. For all that she said, there was very little substance.