9 Days to go and all to play for

steelcityblues · 22-05-2012 02:04PM #1

Just listening to the 4FM discussion on the Treaty, where they have a ran a poll asking how voters will vote on May 31 - 96% said NO and only 4% said YES. Also, they could not get on e single caller to advocate for the yes side, during the programme.

Now I know these polls work on a different basis from the likes of Millward Brown, but given how one sided the result was, and along with the controversial comments of several key players for the yes side, it would be foolish to stay that the yes side definitely have it.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 22-05-2012 02:06PM

steelcityblues wrote: »

Just listening to the 4FM discussion on the Treaty, where they have a ran a poll asking how voters will vote on May 31 - 96% said NO and only 4% said YES. Also, they could not get on e single caller to advocate for the yes side, during the programme.

Now I know these polls work on a different basis from the likes of Millward Brown, but given how one sided the result was, and along with the controversial comments of several key players for the yes side, it would be foolish to stay that the yes side definitely have it.

It would be very foolish, I don't think anyone actually is saying that though?

steelcityblues · 22-05-2012 02:12PM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It would be very foolish, I don't think anyone actually is saying that though?

I think some people overlooked the fact that in the most recent Millward Brown poll, there was a big chunk of 19% who declared themselves undecided. That 19% will be the key swing voter, of course.

spank_inferno · 22-05-2012 02:18PM

It will still be carried by at least 10% I reckon.

Obviously a generalisation, however I see the "No" voters as being the type who are less likely to vote in the first place.

(a straw pole at our Sunday dinner table gave the "No" side an 6-2 victory. Only three of us are registered... only two of us voted at the last election!)

Expect the Middle classes / pensioners / party faithfull to carry the day easily.

* I could be wrong though

steelcityblues · 22-05-2012 02:21PM

spank_inferno wrote: »

It will still be carried by at least 10% I reckon.

Obviously a generalisation, however I see the "No" voters as being the type who are less likely to vote in the first place.

(a straw pole at our Sunday dinner table gave the "No" side an 8-2 victory. Only three of us are registered... only two of us voted at the last election!)

Expect the Middle classes / pensioners / party faithfull to carry the day easily.

* I could be wrong though

For what it is worth, a lot of the callers today sounded and/or middle class and over 60. Both groups would have been part of the core yes vote in previous treaties I agree, but the tide might be turning.

GSF · 22-05-2012 02:37PM

knowing 4FMs very low listenship figures (and listening to their god awful phone in show - which might explain the former), the poll is likely to only have about 15 -20 respondents (excluding 4FM staff!)

Ozymandius2011 · 22-05-2012 02:42PM

Remember that the last Oireachtas Inquiries poll had 78% in favour.

steelcityblues · 22-05-2012 02:43PM

GSF wrote: »

knowing 4FMs very low listenship figures (and listening to their god awful phone in show - which might explain the former), the poll is likely to only have about 15 -20 respondents (excluding 4FM staff!)

Roughly 20,000, according to thelatest JNLR. Given a typical poll features 1,000 people, do you think you should dismiss it so easily?

PopeBuckfastXVI · 22-05-2012 02:47PM

GSF wrote: »

knowing 4FMs very low listenship figures (and listening to their god awful phone in show - which might explain the former), the poll is likely to only have about 15 -20 respondents (excluding 4FM staff!)

25 respondents would give 24 against and 1 for, 50 would give 48 against and 2 for.

Out of curiosity, is the programme broadcast during office hours?

syklops · 22-05-2012 02:53PM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Out of curiosity, is the programme broadcast during office hours?

Yep, therein lies the key to understanding these results.

GSF · 22-05-2012 02:56PM

steelcityblues wrote: »

Roughly 20,000, according to thelatest JNLR. Given a typical poll features 1,000 people, do you think you should dismiss it so easily?

Their average quarter hour is closer to 1k as opposed to their total daily reach (i'm assuming the poll was only open for say 30 to 60 minutes max). So I'd guess if 1k are listening, maybe 1% or 10 people responded? I'm being generous in saying 20!

The Waltzing Consumer · 22-05-2012 05:33PM

steelcityblues wrote: »

Roughly 20,000, according to thelatest JNLR. Given a typical poll features 1,000 people, do you think you should dismiss it so easily?

You also got to hand it to the No side as I think they are proportionately more active then yes voters. Any articles in the main Irish online sites are predominately full of no voters in the comments section, the no voters made the most noise on the Frontline debate and the Matt Cooper debate and it would not surprise me that this was the case here.

It is not a bad thing, it is good they are active, it is just a pity they do it for this particular campaign.

later12 · 22-05-2012 06:44PM

steelcityblues wrote: »

Just listening to the 4FM discussion on the Treaty, where they have a ran a poll asking how voters will vote on May 31 - 96% said NO and only 4% said YES. Also, they could not get on e single caller to advocate for the yes side, during the programme.

Now I know these polls work on a different basis from the likes of Millward Brown, but given how one sided the result was, and along with the controversial comments of several key players for the yes side, it would be foolish to stay that the yes side definitely have it.

Apart from the obvious demographic limitations of this poll, it is a self selective poll. The professional polling agencies randomly select members of the public and only include those respondents with a reasonable or strong chance of voting on referendum day.

One might put forward all sorts of theories as to why the 'No' vote was so unusually large in the poll you reference. However, even as a supporter of the 'No' argument, I don't think there is a serious chance that the Treaty proposal will be refused. The Irish voting public simply appear to believe there is too much at stake to say No this time.

sinsin · 28-05-2012 03:33PM

later12 wrote: »

Apart from the obvious demographic limitations of this poll, it is a self selective poll. The professional polling agencies randomly select members of the public and only include those respondents with a reasonable or strong chance of voting on referendum day.

One might put forward all sorts of theories as to why the 'No' vote was so unusually large in the poll you reference. However, even as a supporter of the 'No' argument, I don't think there is a serious chance that the Treaty proposal will be refused. The Irish voting public simply appear to believe there is too much at stake to say No this time.

Social welfare and Public Service money under threat.

C14N · 29-05-2012 07:01PM

steelcityblues wrote: »

Just listening to the 4FM discussion on the Treaty, where they have a ran a poll asking how voters will vote on May 31 - 96% said NO and only 4% said YES. Also, they could not get on e single caller to advocate for the yes side, during the programme.

It is 4fm though. I assume you listen to it often so you know that their discussions are truly woeful. They are highly entertaining though, in much the same way as Joe Duffy's crowd can be. It's a shame because their music isn't too bad.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

You also got to hand it to the No side as I think they are proportionately more active then yes voters. Any articles in the main Irish online sites are predominately full of no voters in the comments section, the no voters made the most noise on the Frontline debate and the Matt Cooper debate and it would not surprise me that this was the case here.

It is not a bad thing, it is good they are active, it is just a pity they do it for this particular campaign.

This is quite true. Any video I have seen on Youtube has been filled with angry no voters posting their opinions. The only problem is that they are generally complete nonsense (although discussion on Youtube is always somewhat hit-and-miss).

Ozymandius2011 · 29-05-2012 11:01PM

Well 2FM is more substantial in listenership and the Colm Hayes show had a text poll with 68% voting no. Make of that what you will.

oscarBravo · 29-05-2012 11:05PM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Well 2FM is more substantial in listenership and the Colm Hayes show had a text poll with 68% voting no. Make of that what you will.

I make of it... nothing. It's a text poll; it's meaningless.

What do you make of it?

beeftotheheels · 29-05-2012 11:09PM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Well 2FM is more substantial in listenership and the Colm Hayes show had a text poll with 68% voting no. Make of that what you will.

Farmers don't listen to 2FM. The Farmer's Journal and IFA on the other hand...

Ozymandius2011 · 29-05-2012 11:10PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I make of it... nothing. It's a text poll; it's meaningless.

What do you make of it?

That opposition to the Treaty is higher than the newspaper polls are suggesting.

oscarBravo · 29-05-2012 11:12PM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

That opposition to the Treaty is higher than the newspaper polls are suggesting.

So you're firmly asserting your belief that a text poll is more accurate than the polls carried out using scientifically-validated methodologies by professional polling companies.

Okay... no confirmation bias at work here. No sirree bob.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 29-05-2012 11:20PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Okay... no confirmation bias at work here. No sirree bob.

You have to wonder why we bother sometimes.

I can honestly say I came into this whole thing with an open mind. I was leaning towards a 'no' from the start, I saw plenty of arguments to convince me toward a 'yes' and saw many of the things that had led me toward 'no' in the first place debunked.

If someone presented a really cogent argument detailing how the benefits of a 'no' outweigh the benefits of a 'yes' then I would have to hand it to them, and am definitely open to being convinced.

So far though, nobody has come close to that, with the possible exception of later12. Can posters like Ozy, hand on heart, really say their mind is open to being changed? If not then this whole thing becomes not a discussion, but a series of soapbox arguments which are for the benefit of the unseen, silent 'majority' who are supposedly reading all this and swaying back and forth with every post.

I have to admit it saddens me a little.

beeftotheheels · 29-05-2012 11:33PM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I have to admit it saddens me a little.

It saddens me a lot.

steelcityblues · 29-05-2012 11:36PM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

That opposition to the Treaty is higher than the newspaper polls are suggesting.

Interesting. I am sure those in their twenties and thirties will be mostly NO.

steelcityblues · 29-05-2012 11:39PM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You have to wonder why we bother sometimes.

I can honestly say I came into this whole thing with an open mind. I was leaning towards a 'no' from the start, I saw plenty of arguments to convince me toward a 'yes' and saw many of the things that had led me toward 'no' in the first place debunked.

If someone presented a really cogent argument detailing how the benefits of a 'no' outweigh the benefits of a 'yes' then I would have to hand it to them, and am definitely open to being convinced.

So far though, nobody has come close to that, with the possible exception of later12. Can posters like Ozy, hand on heart, really say their mind is open to being changed? If not then this whole thing becomes not a discussion, but a series of soapbox arguments which are for the benefit of the unseen, silent 'majority' who are supposedly reading all this and swaying back and forth with every post.

I have to admit it saddens me a little.

You are honestly quite full of it it at times, and you are only upset because not everyone shares the same viewpoint on this matter as you. Most posters here are OK, I think.

That is what happens on forums - deal with it!

PopeBuckfastXVI · 29-05-2012 11:43PM

steelcityblues wrote: »

You are honestly quite full of it it at times, and you are only upset because not everyone shares the same viewpoint on this matter as you. Most posters here are OK, I think.

That is what happens on forums - deal with it!

The scales have dropped from my eyes, you've convinced me to join your cause, thank you my good man, thank you, I've been blind but now I can finally see...

steelcityblues · 29-05-2012 11:45PM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The scales have dropped from my eyes, you've convinced me to join your cause, thank you my good man, thank you, I've been blind but now I can finally see...

I like healing the wounded.

sock puppet · 29-05-2012 11:46PM

steelcityblues wrote: »

You are honestly quite full of it it at times, and you are only upset because not everyone shares the same viewpoint on this matter as you

Have you ever studied statistics?

beeftotheheels · 29-05-2012 11:46PM

steelcityblues wrote: »

You are honestly quite full of it it at times, and you are only upset because not everyone shares the same viewpoint on this matter as you. Most posters here are OK, I think.

That is what happens on forums - deal with it!

No. It is what happens when one side tell lies about things and those not bothered or capable of informing themselves buy into it - because it is what they want to hear.

That there could be an end to austerity tomorrow.

That there's an easy way to recover from the 9.8 financial earthquake that hit us in 07/08.

That 4 years of pain is as bad as it can get (really, 9.8 on the richter scale a recovery in 10 years would be a miracle but that is not what people want to hear so it must be a threat as opposed to an informed analysis of the situation).

But the worst part, is seeing that despite the fact that people can now see Bertie was selling snake oil in 2007, people are still falling over themselves to buy snake oil version 2.0 as sold by SF/ ULA/ Libertas.

steelcityblues · 29-05-2012 11:54PM

beeftotheheels wrote: »

No. It is what happens when one side tell lies about things and those not bothered or capable of informing themselves buy into it - because it is what they want to hear.

Certainty and Stability are very vague words don't you think. Yet, they have been repeated ad nauseum by the same small group of voices.

Certain of what - that most people will be at work in five years time? That we will have a functioning economy? Nothing stable to me either about an economy that has all this banker debt in it.

I don't like the continuing hammering home of the word 'austerity' by the likes of Paul Murphy and his comrades, either. That is lazy, too.

So, can you even consider that BOTH yes and no, can talk crap?

Maybe you can't believe it, but Declan Ganley, Mary Lou McDonald or Paul Murphy did not convince me to vote NO. I did it through my own reasoning. Hope most of the electorate do, too.

beeftotheheels · 30-05-2012 12:32AM

steelcityblues wrote: »

Certainty and Stability are very vague words don't you think. Yet, they have been repeated ad nauseum by the same small group of voices.

Certain of what - that most people will be at work in five years time? That we will have a functioning economy? Nothing stable to me either about an economy that has all this banker debt in it.

I don't like the continuing hammering home of the word 'austerity' by the likes of Paul Murphy and his comrades, either. That is lazy, too.

So, can you even consider that BOTH yes and no, can talk crap?

Maybe you can't believe it, but Declan Ganley, Mary Lou McDonald or Paul Murphy did not convince me to vote NO. I did it through my own reasoning. Hope most of the electorate do, too.

I fully acknowledge that both sides are talking crap. It causes me to lose sleep at night. I'm a yes voter because I've read the relevant docs and prefer an answer that doesn't require us to spend years in court proving our point when, if we need bailout 2.0 we will not have years.

I hate the way the yes campaign is being fought. But I hate more the obvious lies being told by the no campaign, lies which presuppose that the electorate are oblivious to the already binding rules under the six-pack.

The problem for me is that the No side get to tell absolute lies with impunity, and the moment that those lies are challenged that "evidences the Yes side threatening the electorate". It doesn't matter if the challenge is based on logic, reason, education (all the more reason to vote no, educated people who might actually understand this must be part of "official Ireland trying to put the working man down").

This isn't about the TSCG, it is about the need of every Irish electorate to believe that there must be a simple, painless (for them, not for whatever other sectors of society they currently despise and deem worthy of pain) solution. Which there isn't.

Happyman42 · 30-05-2012 12:46AM

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I fully acknowledge that both sides are talking crap. It causes me to lose sleep at night. I'm a yes voter because I've read the relevant docs and prefer an answer that doesn't require us to spend years in court proving our point when, if we need bailout 2.0 we will not have years.

I hate the way the yes campaign is being fought. But I hate more the obvious lies being told by the no campaign, lies which presuppose that the electorate are oblivious to the already binding rules under the six-pack.

The problem for me is that the No side get to tell absolute lies with impunity, and the moment that those lies are challenged that "evidences the Yes side threatening the electorate". It doesn't matter if the challenge is based on logic, reason, education (all the more reason to vote no, educated people who might actually understand this must be part of "official Ireland trying to put the working man down").

This isn't about the TSCG, it is about the need of every Irish electorate to believe that there must be a simple, painless (for them, not for whatever other sectors of society they currently despise and deem worthy of pain) solution. Which there isn't.

Simon Coveney was caught telling lies on VB tonight or else Enda lied to the Dail earlier in the year, (make your own mind up who was telling the truth.) To me it was a major lie, in that he was trying to present a picture that this government was working in our interests and was continuing to do that by looking for a Yes vote.
Does the fact that a government minister or our Taoiseach was telling a lie about asking for a write down of the debt give you any cause for concern about their motives?

9 Days to go and all to play for

Comments