2011 Presidential Election- Start of Campaign Poll

**BonnieShels** · 04/10/2011, 9:37 PM

1. Higgins
2. McGuinness & Mitchell
3. Norris
4. Gallagher
5. Davis
6. Dana

Gallagher has no substance really. The less said about Mary and Dana the better. All platitudinal crap.
Have been very impressed by McG's approach to the tough questioning. He's grown into it thoroughly.
Norris has been mental but we couldn't have expected anything else.
Mitchell was a lot more impressive than I was expecting him to be. FG have to drop this anti-McGuinness crap because it's not working and making him look like a tw@t.

Amazingly in the last few minutes you can see Gay has cottoned onto this and I can see a change of angle from FG from tomorrow.

Higgins has been heads and shoulders above the rest though. He is different class in his ability to convey confidence without resorting to shouting and classlessness.

**BonnieShels** · 04/10/2011, 9:38 PM

And now we move onto Norris' letters!

**BonnieShels** · 04/10/2011, 9:41 PM

Not handling this at all well.

**legendz** · 04/10/2011, 9:41 PM

My rating of performances:

1. Mitchell
2. McGuinness
3. Higgins
4. ******
5. Dana
6. Gallagher
7. Davis

**BonnieShels** · 04/10/2011, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by legendz

My rating of performances:

1. Mitchell
2. McGuinness
3. Higgins
4. ******
5. Dana
6. Gallagher
7. Davis

Didn't know this fella was nominated...

**BonnieShels** · 04/10/2011, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by legendz

My rating of performances:

1. Mitchell
2. McGuinness
3. Higgins
4. ******
5. Dana
6. Gallagher
7. Davis

Couldn't disagree more.

Higgins was way out in front.
McGuinness and Mitchell joint-second.

Norris had a bad debate and didn't come across well.

The two "Independent FFers" were woeful.

And Dana was... yeah.

**Lim till i die** · 05/10/2011, 1:42 AM

1. McGuinness (The frankly astonishing personal attack from Vincenzo could perversly help him, carried himself well throughout)
2. Gallagher (I don't like him but he'll go down well in the sticks, best of the independents by a mile)
3. Michael D (Got an easy ride from his buddy, said nothing too pompous. I can't stand the man personally but you were looking at your next president in him I fear.)

Big Gap

4. Gay Mitchell (Rabidly attacking Shinners is sooooo 1986 Gay, it make you look like a dull, bitter, clown...... you dull, bitter clown. The smug look on his face when Vincent Browne was doing his best to win the former chief of staff of the PIRA a sympathy vote made me throw my dog at the telly and my dogs about four stone)

Gaping Chasm

5. Mary Davis (vile, patronising, parasite. But then so were the previous two incumbents)
6. Dana (mad as a brush, far too worst kind of catholic for my liking aswell)

Hurtling Towards the Earths Core.

7. David Norris (Absolutely finished after that question tonight. Can't understand for the life of me why he ran, either he has no good friends or he's an egomaniac.)

**mypost** · 05/10/2011, 6:52 AM

He ran because the polls looked good for him, they may yet still do. Despite what he's got up to.

Cagney on IAM said this morning, that his son and their generation see MMG a lot differently to how Cagney's generation see him. It's a fair point, but I can't see him winning tbh. Dana and Davis offer little substance, and don't really seem to know what the gig entails.

**BonnieShels** · 05/10/2011, 8:07 AM

The thing about Cagney's son's generation is that they are less likely to vote.(I am probably his generation technically but I'd say there's an age gap of sorts)

No one I know has any thoughts of positivity towards SF but McGuinness was very good last night and handled VB's assertions.

I think VB handled the debate as well as he could and threw everyone an awkward one.

I just worry for the RT� debate because PK will try to tear into McG and Mitchell and will give Davis and Gallagher a free run.

Mitchell needs to stop attacking SF. Once he stopped doing that last night he relaxed more.

**Macy** · 05/10/2011, 8:09 AM

Originally Posted by mypost

Could have and would have are one thing, doing it is another. They can also re-order General Elections such as in 1989, but never do. Both did what the Taoiseach of the time told them to do.

We're not electing Obama here, a proper President, whose actions can make or break a nation. We're electing someone to upsticks for 7, probably 14 years, on a very generous salary. It's a personality contest, for a very limited and functional role.

You're wrong on the powers of the president. You'll never accept it, but you are.

Originally Posted by Lim till i die

7. David Norris (Absolutely finished after that question tonight. Can't understand for the life of me why he ran, either he has no good friends or he's an egomaniac.)

He's gone if todays story about the disability benefit is true. Well he'll probably still do ok on 1st Preferences (the mypost factor of an inability to admit they're wrong), but he won't get the transfers.

**pineapple stu** · 05/10/2011, 8:33 AM

Originally Posted by Macy

He's gone if todays story about the disability is true.

Is this the bit about him having a degenerative eye illness? Saw that yesterday in the Daily Mail, but you know - I assumed it was probably the Daily Mail talking crap and attacking the gay guy. For our children's sake. And think of the soldiers in Iraq.

**mypost** · 05/10/2011, 8:47 AM

Originally Posted by Macy

You're wrong on the powers of the president. You'll never accept it, but you are.

There's nothing to accept imo, so I don't have to admit to anything that is wrong atm.

Some people think we're choosing a leader with a lot of power and accountability. Indeed we did, even though it was last February.

**Macy** · 05/10/2011, 9:09 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Is this the bit about him having a degenerative eye illness? Saw that yesterday in the Daily Mail, but you know - I assumed it was probably the Daily Mail talking crap and attacking the gay guy. For our children's sake. And think of the soldiers in Iraq.

Sorry, I've amended the post for clarification. One of the papers is running that he was on Disability Benefit for 16 years, up until last year. The implication is that he wasn't fit enough to work at Trinners, but was to work and claim the salary for being a senator. In the current climate where the media have been whipping up an anti social welfare storm, he'll be lumped in with that mythical family in Donegal.

Personally I'm not sure I see it as that wrong - the Seanad is a part time role, and if he's deemed not fit for the day job, what's he to do? If the Seanad is to remain, it should be open to all, including those with a disability and without them being left the poorer for it.

**OwlsFan** · 05/10/2011, 10:21 AM

I'd never vote for President

(1) a murderer who only stopped murdering because there was a prospect of power.
(2) someone whose claim to fame is that they won the Eurovision.
(3) a person who used their seat in the Seanaid to write to a foreign power to go easy of a statutory rapist who is an ex-boyfriend.
(4) some Fianna Fail hacks in different clothing.
(5) a poet who would spend most of his time composing sonnets.

That leaves Mitchell uninspiring and all as he is but one needs a safe hand as President.

**pineapple stu** · 05/10/2011, 10:23 AM

Bit harsh dismissing Higgins as a "Fianna F�il hack in different clothing"?

**Macy** · 05/10/2011, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Bit harsh dismissing Higgins as a "Fianna F�il hack in different clothing"?

Did he not win eurovision? I lost track when we used to win it every year...

**Macy** · 05/10/2011, 12:04 PM

Turns out Norris was receiving the disability payments from Trinners, rather than Social Welfare. I think it's a bit of a nothing story to be honest, but the media appear to be running with it regardless.

**culloty82** · 05/10/2011, 1:39 PM

It is a legitimate question though to ask how hepatitis can render a person incapable of lecturing, but conduct gruelling Senate and Presidential campaigns? I think FG's US PR people have sold Mitchell a pup on the negative campaigning, that said his dour personality doesn't help, and you suspect M�iread McGuinness would have fared far better. It's sobering to realise though that words like Warrington, Canary Wharf and Marita Ann will mean nothing to 18-24 year old voters, who'll only know Martin McG as the cuddly Chuckle Brother.

**Macy** · 05/10/2011, 2:06 PM

Originally Posted by culloty82

It is a legitimate question though to ask how hepatitis can render a person incapable of lecturing, but conduct gruelling Senate and Presidential campaigns?

That is fair enough thinking about it. McCullough on the News at One basically said Norris conceded he'd got better, but still didn't go back to work, so has dug himself a new hole to get out of. Doesn't help the impression he'd be an accident waiting to happen in the Aras.

Originally Posted by culloty82

I think FG's US PR people have sold Mitchell a pup on the negative campaigning, that said his dour personality doesn't help, and you suspect M�iread McGuinness would have fared far better.

Is it not Mitchells personality rather than the PR people? FG fecked up by entertaining Cox - without the thought of a none FGer running, would Mitchell have even entered the race?

Originally Posted by culloty82

It's sobering to realise though that words like Warrington, Canary Wharf and Marita Ann will mean nothing to 18-24 year old voters, who'll only know Martin McG as the cuddly Chuckle Brother.

Well it makes me feel old.

**Spudulika** · 05/10/2011, 3:38 PM

Originally Posted by culloty82

It is a legitimate question though to ask how hepatitis can render a person incapable of lecturing, but conduct gruelling Senate and Presidential campaigns? I think FG's US PR people have sold Mitchell a pup on the negative campaigning, that said his dour personality doesn't help, and you suspect M�iread McGuinness would have fared far better. It's sobering to realise though that words like Warrington, Canary Wharf and Marita Ann will mean nothing to 18-24 year old voters, who'll only know Martin McG as the cuddly Chuckle Brother.

Generations pass and history is past. A couple of generations will view Churchill as a great leader instead of a haphazard politician who had a thirst for blood.

Dana tried to speak economics and society in the debate, but there was more interest in "the craic" - MDH was like a lacklustre frog, Norris was like he was on uppers, Mitchell tried snarling but saw he was getting nowhere, MMG was smooth and urbane, MD was a non-entity, SG not as tough as I thought he would be.

Dreadful format, shows Browne up to be the hack he is.