true, although I think they made a mistake in running McGuinnes. Had they run a young, "clean" untarnished candidate, with no history of being a paramilitary, they might had done better, especially with FF not in the race. One good thing about this campaign is that it perhaps reminded some of the younger voters of the history of SF so that is no bad thing
true, although I think they made a mistake in running McGuinnes. Had they run a young, "clean" untarnished candidate, with no history of being a paramilitary, they might had done better, especially with FF not in the race. One good thing about this campaign is that it perhaps reminded some of the younger voters of the history of SF so that is no bad thing
That's a good point (hope they don't follow this site!).
I agree with that. SF increased there % of the vote compared to the GE, but because the turnout was lower I don't think there was any real difference in the actual numbers of voters.
They might have been better runing a caoimhin o caolain - type candiate (A member of SF but not associated with the IRA).
However, one of the polls that slipped under the radar during the presidential election was the state of the parties. FG polled strongly and FF, LAB and SF were all close in their mid to late teens. SF still have huge potential once Adams/ McGuinnes move on.
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,962
Surely it is the percentage of vote they get that counts - not the nominal number of votes !!
The key figure is the number of people that put Martin McGuinness somewhere on their ballot paper. I know many people that were talking about voting for SF somewhere on their ballot "to make sure that such-and-such doesn't get in". For many people this will be the 1st time that they have ever selected a SF candidate even if many of those votes did not count/transfer.
This sets a precedence for the future. There will be less stigma around voting SF in the next election and the media are less likely to hound SF with the IRA/Murder/Criminality questions in the next GE because the public for the most part will be bored of it. Putting McGuinness forward was a master stroke which will reap rewards in future elections. Note: I do not support SF.
Anyone I knew were selecting "anyone but McGuiness" to make sure he didn't get in. That includes a number of first time voters who don't remember the troubles
dereko1969
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,046
Not for extrapolation purposes. Apart from European elections this was the first time SF had a candidate in every constituency and they barely increased their percentage or number of votes.
I don't think SF wanted MMG to get elected it was purely to increase "brand awareness" it would have been interesting to see if he'd been at 40% heading into the final week if SF would have inflicted an own goal on themselves.
Agreed. More brand awareness today - they walked out of the Dail over the Anglo bond repayment of €700m.
I have a sneaking suspicion they will be part of the next coalition government.
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,962
They didn't walk out of Stormont when the swingeing cuts up there were proposed - because it was them who was doing the cutting.