Private polling and focus groups indicate Lisbon 2 may be lost: Sunday Times

[dotski_w_]

but in a way isnt that the point?

ganly we were told by all "respected" companies had at best only 2% of the vote. he was derided publically on the matter.

in the end IIRC he got circa 70k votes. not only a damn sight more than 2% but very close to what gay mitchell got last time around in dublin (90k i think) 5yrs previously

He was on 9% in this poll (Irish Times 16th May)

Drop in support for FF may not benefit FG - The Irish Times - Sat, May 16, 2009

The Fahey pronouncment was 25th May (there was also some pronuncement by a local paper's editor which was taken as proof that he'd win which was treated as an undiscovered 5th gospel by some in this parish at the time).

Ganley got 13.7% on 5th June. That's a swing of 4.7%, which if I'm not mistaken is within the margin of error of that IT poll. most ppl talking about it at the time in this parish said he needed about 18-19% or so to be fighting for the last seat, so he got a swing of about half that (maybe less).

Ganley said that his 'internal' polls had him winning a seat - did you believe him then, and do you beleive these now? Guillible people love 'internal' polls that back their candidate/position, but most intelligent ppl don't.

[ibis]

He was on 9% in this poll (Irish Times 16th May)

Drop in support for FF may not benefit FG - The Irish Times - Sat, May 16, 2009

The Fahey pronouncment was 25th May (there was also some pronuncement by a local paper's editor which was taken as proof that he'd win which was treated as an undiscovered 5th gospel by some in this parish at the time).

Ganley got 13.7% on 5th June. That's a swing of 4.7%, which if I'm not mistaken is within the margin of error of that IT poll. most ppl talking about it at the time in this parish said he needed about 18-19% or so to be fighting for the last seat, so he got a swing of about half that (maybe less).

Ganley said that his 'internal' polls had him winning a seat - did you believe him then, and do you beleive these now? Guillible people love 'internal' polls that back their candidate/position, but most intelligent ppl don't.

I remember Cookie claiming that internal Libertas polls had him on 25%. My own view was always that he'd probably capture the "Dana vote", which is pretty much exactly what he did.

[FutureTaoiseach]

He was on 9% in this poll (Irish Times 16th May)

Drop in support for FF may not benefit FG - The Irish Times - Sat, May 16, 2009

The Fahey pronouncment was 25th May (there was also some pronuncement by a local paper's editor which was taken as proof that he'd win which was treated as an undiscovered 5th gospel by some in this parish at the time).

Ganley got 13.7% on 5th June. That's a swing of 4.7%, which if I'm not mistaken is within the margin of error of that IT poll. most ppl talking about it at the time in this parish said he needed about 18-19% or so to be fighting for the last seat, so he got a swing of about half that (maybe less).

Ganley said that his 'internal' polls had him winning a seat - did you believe him then, and do you beleive these now? Guillible people love 'internal' polls that back their candidate/position, but most intelligent ppl don't.

If the Ganley polls had him on 14%, then it was quite reasonable to assume he would be in with a shot, given Dana got in on a smaller 1st pref vote than that.

[CookieMonster]

I remember Cookie claiming that internal Libertas polls had him on 25%. My own view was always that he'd probably capture the "Dana vote", which is pretty much exactly what he did.

I do recall we kind of shot your Dana Theory all to hell before. It's also funny that you never mentioned it before the election either... hmmm

Also. I don't ever recall claiming internal polls had Ganley on 25%. I never saw those internal polls - I saw others earlier on but nothing with him at 25%. Ganley himself mentioned it. But nice of you to try and stelthly rope me into ditski's "Guillible people" category.

[dotski_w_]

If the Ganley polls had him on 14%, then it was quite reasonable to assume he would be in with a shot, given Dana got in on a smaller 1st pref vote than that.

Well yes, if she had been elected with it, your point would make a smidgeon of sense ....

Dana lost on 13.5% of the vote. The time she was elected she recieved more than that (16%) and had the advantage of being ahead of another female independent in Harkin. Had Harkin polled ahead of her, even the 16% woulnd't have been enough.

You coudln't possibly have beleived he would have been elected on 14%, I recall KN and myself agreeing that something of the order of 18-19% would have been required. Still, given the amazing entertainment we all got from your predictions for the PDs in the last GE, I guess it's not yourself we'll all be looking to for numerate analysis .........

[CookieMonster]

The reason that we are having a referendum at all is because the Lisbon treaty is beyond the scope of our elected representitives to implement.

It also appears to be beyond the scope of our elected representitives to understand it or, indeed, promote it without reference to bogey and/or strawmen.

[dotski_w_]

It also appears to be beyond the scope of our elected representitives to understand it or, indeed, promote it without reference to bogey and/or strawmen.

are you a bogey or a straw man Cookie?

[CookieMonster]

are you a bogey or a straw man Cookie?

Jim Higgins thinks so.

[ibis]

I do recall we kind of shot your Dana Theory all to hell before. It's also funny that you never mentioned it before the election either... hmmm

Also. I don't ever recall claiming internal polls had Ganley on 25%. I never saw those internal polls - I saw others earlier on but nothing with him at 25%. Ganley himself mentioned it. But nice of you to try and stelthly rope me into ditski's "Guillible people" category.

Possibly my memory is as faulty as yours, of course.

[CookieMonster]

Possibly my memory is as faulty as yours, of course.

Yeah, keep digging.