Saturday, February 29, 2020

Thoughts - Israel

Trends suggest Likud is now ahead of Blue and White; I'm tracking this, but it looks, maybe, just possibly, bibi could get his majority.

Thursday, February 27, 2020

New post type: Commentary

In my effort to post more, I'm going to expand into general commentary on various issues.

Today's commentary: The Syrian civil war has gone on for a long time. There are very few civil wars of this type, that have lasted this long. By this type I mean where certain areas are held, long term, by one of the various forces (Idlib has been in rebel hands from the start)

Monday, February 24, 2020

Malaysia Shocker

In surprise news, Malaysia's PM has resigned.

Those who know about the country, might be wondering why this is a surprise, as, it had been planned since the last election, for Mahathir to resign at about this time and for his successor, Anwar, to take over. After all, Anwar's party is what really won the last election, and without Anwar's support, Mahathir could have never become PM (again). In fact, if not for the false charges against Anwar, he would have simply become PM himself.

The surprise is that it seems Mahathir wants to form a coalition with the previous ruling party and shut Anwar out of office.

A month ago, the new ruling coalition had 129 seats; 26 of which belongs to Mahathir's party. Now, it has 92 seats, after Mahathir's party, and 11 members of Anwar's own party, have peeled off to join the opposition.

This would make the second time that Mahathir has bilked Anwar out of the Prime Ministership.

The decision making power over who will form the next government now seemingly goes to the Sultan. Malaysia has an interesting monarchy. Like Canada, it is a confederation, but unlike Canada, each member state has its own King, or Sultan (one state calls their Sultan the Raja and another the Yamtuan Besar, while the federal Sultan is known as Yang di-Pertuan Agong; but in colloquial conversation, the word 'sultan' is used for all). The person who holds the federal Sultan position is elected among the 9 provincial sultans for a term of 5 years. Interestingly, the previous Sultan was the first to step down early, after serving only 3 years. The current Sultan, who has served slightly over a year, is the sultan of Pahang, the largest (physically) province on the Mainland, and the 4th smallest by population.

I will keep you updated as news develops.

Sunday, February 23, 2020

Is Sanders the new McGovern?


I should define something though. What is "McGovern".

Is "McGovern" George Stanley McGovern, born 1922, who won the 1972 Democratic nomination for President? Is McGovern the guy who grew up in South Dakota, and went on to represent that state as a Senator for nearly 20 years? Is McGovern the guy who was the target of the activities outlined in the Watergate scandal? Is McGovern the left-wing progressive who is famous for being so left wing?


McGovern is the guy who couldn't gain traction in the election of 1972.

Being a Senator, being from South Dakota, being a left-wing progressive, none of that, is related to why he couldn't gain traction.

What is?

Is it when he said he was 1000% behind Eagleton? Is it when he Fired Eagleton?

No. It's when he did both.

You can do one. Or the other. And be fine. You can not do both. Why? Simple:

You appear weak.

Lets go on a tangent and look at presidential polling. Comparing where they start, in the summer, and where they end, in November.

Lets look at 1964. In June, Johnson lead Goldwater 77 to 18. By the time of the election, Johnson only won 61 to 38.

In 1980, Carter lead Reagan 39-32 in June, but lost 51-41 in November. Pre-summer polling had Carter way up at 62%.

1988 had Dukakis lead the summer 47-41, but he would lose 53-45. Dukakis would lead right up to the infamous "Tank Photo" after which he dropped and stayed low.

In 1992, Ross Perot actually lead in June, 39 compared to 31 for Bush and 25 for Clinton. Perot would lose badly, in part, because he dropped out.

Polls can move, quite a bit, during an election. In fact, McGovern was behind 53-37 in June, which is something that could be made up during the election. It was not. Why? Simple:

He looked weak.

Look at what happened to Corbyn over Brexit. He ended up not being able to take a single solid position and looked weak as a result. His personal likability plummeted after that decision. Why? Was it because people disagreed with the policy? Quite the opposite, the policy was actually somewhat popular. So why did he stall in the polls and lose the election?

He looked weak.

This is something that the incumbent US President used during the 2016 Republican nomination. Jeb went from the front runner, to "low energy". Why?

He looked weak.

Is Sanders the new McGovern?


Sanders does not look weak.

Tuesday, February 18, 2020

Thoughts on Irish coalition possibilities

I thought I'd try to rank the coalition options for Ireland.

SF Majority: 3%
This would see a ton of Independents on side.

SF Minority: 21%
This would see someone, likely FF, allow a SF government to form, but that the government would not have majority support.

FF-FG Coalition: 1%
Not looking likely. Only way I could see FF (or FG) with a majority

FF Minority: 8%
This would be as the result of some strange dealing, and FG would have to allow it to form.

FG Minority: 0%
FG seems to not want this to happen

Another Election: 67%
Right now this seems a pretty sure bet. SF would be able to run a proper number of candidates, and both FF and FG would have a chance to write manifestos that better reflect the wants of voters.

Sunday, February 16, 2020

My thoughts on the blog and myself

As part of sharing my thoughts when they come up, I wanted to share my thoughts on this blog, and how I think my readers should use it, as well as some information on who I am.

My ideal use case for the blog, and what I try to design/post for, is to have the blog in your bookmarks. That every morning you check it, along with a dozen other bookmarks, half of which have nothing new, and thus, not having a new post here, does not make the blog stand out terribly from the norm.

You come to read it primarily to get introductions to things, both getting a foot in the door, as well as getting information about what is going to happen in advance of it happening. An example from many years ago (and thus beyond the lifespan of this particular blog) is when I noted the NDP's poll rise in the 2011 federal election in Quebec 72 hours before the mainstream media ran stores on the same topic.

I like to look at things and notice how the trends are going. It is my objective that you come here, see me saying "look out for X, as X is happening" and that, a few days or a week later, you read a news story on how "X just happened", as, by keeping up with the blog, you'll already know some baseline information on the topic.

Additionally, I imagine you come here to read my research into various topics. Frequently the prevailing wisdom on an issue is simply wrong or has incorrect stats; I am all about the stats and when I find something amiss, I tell you. It is my intent that you come here to cut through the nonsense and get your information from someone who is not trying to push any particular agenda on you. Yes, I have my views and opinions on issues, but I generally keep the sharing of those to a minimum, and try to give forewarning when I do so.

Lastly, I imagine you come here to get only the information you need. I am not the most verbose writer, partly by design, and partly due to lack of skill. My expertise is in numbers, not words. I aim to give you the stats and the data and let you make up your own mind with those numbers. I thus imagine people wanting to learn more but unwilling to read a longer piece come here to get information on various topics.

So, what do I imagine you do after you've finished reading the blog? I actually imagine, if you found a topic you are interested in, you google it to learn more. My aim is to provide you with enough context so if you do, as a result of that googling, run into advanced academic content that use particular phrases (such as "Triple E Senate" or "The Troubles" or "Shinawatra Loyalists") you know already what they mean and the context behind it. In short, I write these posts to help compliment other data you've found from elsewhere, and imagine you come here first before taking a deep dive into the topic elsewhere.

So, who am I anyway? I am Teddy Boragina. I live in Penetanguishene, Ontario, and I've run for office two times before using my birth name, Nick. I came third in my seat in both the 2003 PEI election and the 2006 Toronto municipal election. First as a New Democrat, and then as a Tory. I've voted for the PC Party / the CPC, the NDP, the Liberals, and the Greens, all at least twice, and if you count the sort of Independent-Tory and Independent-NDP candidates that run in Municipal elections, you can bump that up to a minimum of four times each.

I think if myself as a moderate vs a centrist as many of my views lean one way or another. Importantly, there are many issues I simply do not prioritize. I focus on a few key issues I feel are important, and if some candidate or party disagrees with me on an issue I do not focus on, I'm much more likely to simply overlook it. This often leads to odd situations where the party I agree with on most issues is not the one I support because those "most" issues are simply not as important to me as the key issues I desire to see implemented.

I despise the kind of negative complaining and attacks that comes from overly partisan participation. All MPs do hard work and good work. All parties have good ideas and intentions. Everyone, party and MP, is capable of evil and selfish action. To pretend otherwise sickens me as it suggests to me a aura of fakeness around the complainer that makes me mentally peg them as a liar, and someone not to be trusted. As such those who, 99 times out of 100, back their party while, 99 times out of 100, attack things other parties do, are liable to get themselves blocked or unfollowed by me on twitter, compared to someone who does the same things at a frequency closer to 70 out of 100. It's fine to have favourites, but if I need to dig to find the last time you said something good about this or that party, you and I are likely not going to get along well.

Enough about my thoughts, what about the physical me. I am 35 (I think, I'm at that age where you start to forget these things) and quite chubby. I live on my own in a tiny apartment that is between 10 and 11 feet square, with a tiny 4 by 4 foot bathroom adjoining. I am on ODSP (disability) and my only non-disability income is from my Patreon. The last long-term job I held was lost shortly after my employer found out I have Autism. They simply stopped scheduling me for shifts, so they could get away with saying I was never 'let go'. As a result I became unable to pay back my student loans, and thus, don't even get the various tax rebates that another person in my situation could expect.

I was born in Toronto, and have spent alternating decades living in Toronto, Prince Edward Island, Toronto, and now Penetanguishene. My father was born in southern Italy. I don't know much about his family beyond the fact his father was a shoe maker, and his father was the town crier. Supposedly, our last name means something along the lines of 'bad priest'. My mother was born in Toronto, both her parents from New Brunswick. My grandfather's brother spent time as the Archbishop of Ottawa; growing up in North West NB. As far as we can tell, his family is Quebecois and not actually Acadian, but don't tell that to them.

My grandmother was born in south east NB and before she passed she became interested in genealogy. She is directly related to the first LeBlanc's that settled in the province, and from what she could discover, large parts of her ancestry come from coastal Normandy with a small portion from the Rhone area in Southern France. Her grandmother was Mi'kmaq, something she long suspected but was not able to confirm until the research.

As such I consider myself "Half French and Half Italian", and that I am technically 1/16th Mi'kmaq. If North America ever sank under the waves and I had to go "home" to Europe, I would go to France as I consider myself more French than Italian, even if my blood says otherwise.

I hope this gives everyone a better idea of who I am and why I do this.

Friday, February 14, 2020

Getting to the bottom of the wet'suwet'en protests

Short answer: No.

That might seem like a truly bizarre opener, especially for a statement and not a yes or no question, but the answer is that there's no truly getting to the bottom of things because of how terrible the situation is on both sides.

Let's start with the fact that the elected Wet'suwet'en council supports the pipeline, seems to oppose the protesters, and, from what I can tell, a majority of wet'suwet'en members, also support the pipeline and oppose the protests.

Wet'suwet'en has a number of elected chiefs, who signed on to the project, and it is the un-elected hereditary chiefs, some of whom explicitly lost election recently, who are protesting.

Even the elected chief of the Tyendinaga wonders what the point of blocking the nearby rail line is.

In short, I've not seen convincing evidence that the people in whose name the protesters are protesting, actually support the protesters. If anything, there's far more evidence to the opposite.

So, the natives are in the wrong on this, right? No.

The Tyendinaga claim to own the rail that they are blocking and, interestingly, there seems to be no document that says this land was ever ceeded by them. The closest I could find is the Culbertson Tract dispute, which, is nearby, but does not encompass the specific tiny stretch of rail in question.

Basically, from what I can find, the land was just taken by Loyalists who were fleeing the American Revolution, and, I can't even find evidence anyone even so much as paid for it.

The aforementioned Culbertson Tract was put forward for land dispute in 1995. Back then Bill Clinton was President, Windows 95 was introduced, and the SNES was the most modern gaming system one could buy. The claim has still yet to be settled.

Additionally, this particular stretch of rail was blocked before in 2007, and neither the Federal nor Provincial government seems to have done anything about it (IE, built a rail bypass; made an offer to explicitly buy the land; or some other strategy to ensure it can not be blocked again)

Bluntly, the only time I've seen a government act with any swiftness on Native issues is when a white owned company wants to do something on land a local band has claim to.

So, who is in the wrong here?

Both are. Atrociously. Normally I'm not that blunt on this blog, but this situation has examples of the most extreme extremes.

The key to the protests is not that it's native land, but rather, that its pipelines. And they've decided to hold these protests just as and after a major rail crash of a train forced into carrying oil due to the lack of pipelines. Yet again, Mohawk and Iroquois flags are flying over the site of a protest with which the majority of Canadians disagree, unconsciously training them that these flags are "bad" and the people who stand under them are your enemy.

Meanwhile, this is all targeted against a Federal government whose Indian Act and system for dealing with our first nations peoples was used as a model for the racist apartheid system in South Africa. Natives in this country only earned the right to vote in 1960 (compare this to 1924 in the USA). All this in a country that straight up took indigenous children for residential schools and continued to do so up to the 60's and 70's and longer in some cases. A government whose missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls was so lost it had to put "what are the key issues that need to be addressed" in its online survey.

Frankly, the behavior of both sides is so utterly revolting and deplorable they both deserve to 'lose' this despite. Since, however, that's not really possible, I'll take the position that's most likely to actually see things get better now and in the future; that the Federal Government has to stop being intransigent and focus on indian affairs.

Thursday, February 13, 2020

General Updates - Ireland, Israel, Italy, and more


FF has said they will not coalition with SF. This helps narrow down coalition options. Given what we know about the Independents, I'd break things down as follows:

79 - FF+FG+Lab (Establishment Coalition)
61 - SF+Grn+SD+Sol+Aon (Reform Coalition)
20 - Independents


87 - Establishment
73 - Reform

Keep in mind that a lot of the lines between these two groups are quite fuzzy. Labour may decide to sit with the Reformists, while the Greens could back more Establishment candidates.


I want to look at the polling gap between M5S vs FdI. If you remember, I pointed out the polling gap between M5S and PD a while back, and said that should M5S fall so low they hit PD, that things could change fast. This turned out to be exactly what happened, and resulted in the coalition breaking and the formation of a M5S-PD coalition.

Now that M5S is nearing FdI, we could see a similar situation of chaos break out if the two should meet.


Not much change in the polls, especially comparing the seats everyone has to the current latest polling figures. Quite simply, we'll likely end up back where we started, again, and it's all going to come down to who is and is not willing to sit in coalition with one another, which, as far as I can tell, has not changed. 

Tuesday, February 11, 2020

Ireland - FF vs SF

Along with media statements today, I've decided to take a close look at the new crop of Independents. It turns out they are far more right-wing as a group than I'd been lead to believe.

McNamara, J. Collins, Pringle, Connolly, Fitzmaurice, are all socialistic in one way or another.

Grealish, M. Collins, and Murphy are anti-immigrant or otherwise right-wing

Nolan, and Aontu, are Anti-Abortion but otherwise left-friendly

Fitzpatrick, Lowry, and Naughten are former FG members

Harkin sat with the Liberals while a MEP

McGrath, and O'Donoghue, are a former members of FF

Berry is a former solider who campaigned on the disconnect between the everyday solider and the department of defence, but otherwise seems left-friendly.

Michael and Danny Healy-Rae are generally right-wing.

Canney has a slightly right-wing voting history.

Shanahan is seen as centrist but left-friendly.

6 - left (SF friendly)
3 - neo-nationalist
2 - left but anti-abortion
4 - centrist (FF friendly)
5 - right-wing (FG friendly)

Combined with what seems to be the prevailing trends, this makes a FF-FG coalition, or, at minimum, deal to support governance, much more likely.

Monday, February 10, 2020

Ireland election results

Results are as follows:

SF has done extremely well.

Results, in terms of seats, and first-preference votes, is as follows:

38 - FF - 22.2%
37 - SF - 24.5%
35 - FG - 20.9%
12 - Grn - 7.1%
6 - Lab - 4.4%
6 - SD - 2.9%
5 - Sol - 2.6%
1 - Aon - 1.9%
20 - Ind - 12.6%

What the leaders say to one another, say in public, and who they decide to spend time talking with, tomorrow (The 11th), will determine the shape of the next government. It is difficult if not impossible to narrow down the variables until then. However, here is a summary of the possibilities:

FF, FG, and someone else

FF and FG are, even combined, short of a majority. They would thus need additional members or parties to hit 81 members for a majority.

FG has done poorly enough that it can't make a strong argument to continue in government, as such, Varadkar, the sitting PM, is out. Micheal Martin, FF leader, would then become Taoiseach (Prime Minister) and lead this government. There are two questions however.

First, is what relationship would the parties have. Keep in mind that 90 years ago they were trying to kill one another in a civil war, and that wounds take a long time to heal. Would they be willing to form an outright coalition, or would FG have to settle for some kind of "support" deal.

Second is where would they find the additional members they'd need to make a majority, and, what price will those members demand.

SF and 'everyone else'

Surprisingly this is perhaps the most likely result at the moment. Solidarity/PBP would not be willing to work with a FG-FF coalition, and the other parties, SD, Labour, and the Greens, all lean to the left and thus have quite a bit more in common with SF than they do with FF or FG. Aontu could be seen as right-wing due to its anti-abortion stances, but a lot of the remaining issues they campaign on could be seen as friendly towards the left. Additionally, the overwhelming majority of the Independents are far more Left than they are Right.

The main difficulty here is the math; it only takes one of the other parties (Labour, Greens, or Social Democrats) to turn in order to put a FF-FG government into office, and any group of 5 or more Independents can achieve the same.

FF and SF

This is not likely. Comments made earlier today make this somewhat unlikely and unless FF takes a 180 on the issue tomorrow, I can't see this happening. If it somehow does happen, I can see SF demanding the big chair due to their popular vote victory.

Sunday, February 9, 2020

Ireland projection, based on current tallys

Teddy's current Ireland projection, based on current tallys:
42 FF
39 FG
38 SF
11 GRN
3 SD
1 CC (speaker)
16 IND

In Ireland they like to only report results once final, as in the UK, but they have a tally that shows the count results from most boxes (it does not report boxes with under 50 votes to protect the privacy of the voter)

Based on results, tallys, and my own ratio method applied to the seats without any tally, I've determined a basic result. Within that is a dozen seats I can't make heads or tails of; applying some basic guesstimation to that, and you get the above.

Saturday, February 8, 2020

Ireland, exit poll shocker!

Exit polls are out and all three major parties are tied!

22% for FG, 22% for FF, and 22% for SF.

You can find more details here.

My thiking as a result of this is as follows:

40 FF
35 FG
34 SF
12 Grn
6 SD
5 Lab
4 Solidarity
23 IND

However that's just a quick guesstimation.

Counting starts tomorrow morning, and I'll update everyone by tomorrow evening on how things look!

Friday, February 7, 2020

Dumbest political move in recent history.

In October of 2019, the german state of Thuringia held elections. the results of those elections were as follows:

29 - Linke (Socialist)
22 - AfD (Neo Nationalist)
21 - CDU (Christian Democrat)
8 - SPD (Social Democrat)
5 - Grn (Green)
5 - FDP (Business Liberal)

The existing government was a Red-Red-Green one (Linke+SPD+Greens) and these three parties won a combined 42 seats, short of a Majority.

This is where the numbers get a little complicated.

In trying to put together a minority, the Incumbent was able to receive 43 votes on the first ballot, and 44 on the Second. Where these additional members came from is unknown to me. On the first ballot, the CDU candidate took 25 votes, and on the second, 22. 22 people abstained on the first ballot and 24 on the second.

Someone clearly didn't vote with the party, multiple someones.

The third ballot, however, is where everything started to go nuts.

The FDP leader ran, instead of the CDU leader, and managed to win, 45 votes to 44, with 1 abstention.

It is here I should divert to point out that in 1952, Reinhold Maier, a veteran of the first world war, was elected as Premier of the state of Baden-Wurttemberg. He lead a SPD-FDP coalition despite coming third in the election. He was, up to 2019, the only FDP member to be a state Premier.

After the first two rounds of voting to elect the new Premier in Thuringia in which the CDU nominated their own candidate, who lost in both the rounds, the FDP nominated it's leader as its candidate. He then won, with clear AfD support in the secret ballot for Premier among the members of the Legislature.

It should be noted that 17 of the 21 CDU members had earlier signed a letter saying they should consider working with the AfD, and that it is quite likely there was co-ordination on this, as opposed to the FDP leader 'unknowingly' managing to be elected by the AfD.

This broke the long-standing cordon sanitaire around the AfD. Many people consider the AfD to be similar to the NAZI party, however, as someone who has looked at political parties and the things they do, say, and promise to do, the AfD is much closer to the DNVP, the far-right nationalist party that literally sat in coalition with the NAZI party, and helped it pass the Enabling Act, which gave it dictatorial powers. The NAZIs then removed the DNVP from power 3 months later. The DNVP would then participate in the July 20th plot to assassinate Hitler. The AfD is not Hitler, the AfD is, at its worst, Hitler Enabling.

Regardless, the party is widely viewed as a danger by many within and outside of Germany. Working with them thus caused widespread protests, and condemnations from all parties - including the federal CDU and FDP.

The FDP leader, facing 3 days of this, announced he would be calling snap elections.

So. You may see the basics, but I want to go over exactly why this was the dumbest political move in recent history.

Lets go take a look at the position of the 3 parties in question at the last election:

22 - AfD (Neo Nationalist)
21 - CDU (Christian Democrat)
5 - FDP (Business Liberal)

This is with the anti-AfD agreement in place, with the assumption from many voters, that the AfD would never be allowed to get near government, and, despite that, the AfD managed to beat both the CDU and the FDP.

Additionally, keep in mind that simply allowing the AfD to back them, has harmed them among many more progressive voters; who otherwise could vote for the parties for social or economic reasons. The FDP in particular only passed the threshold by a handful of votes, and now, faces the worst backlash.

Lets assume for a moment that for the FDP this all "worked". What is the most likely result? For one, the FDP could be expected to grow by a few points, and, if everything "works" that means it has been a good government, and as such, the CDU too would see a bump in their vote total.

What then of the AfD? In all honesty, with the 'fear' removed, the AfD vote could be expected to rocket. Even with the best FDP-CDU government, the AfD would still outpoll them in the next election, and thus, such a government would still need their support. Alternativy, perhaps they considered themselves devious, trying to get the AfD to vote them into power but then do all the things that would make SPD and Green voters happy. Great, now you've only given more reason for right-wing voters to vote AfD. Even in the best circumstances, the AfD gets a huge boost from this.

So what happens back in reality, where this blew up in their faces as it always was going to. The AfD comes off as huge winners. While other parties can still claim they'll 'never' work with the AfD, this event points to them, at some point, being removed from the cordon the same way formerly cordoned parties such as Norway's Progress Party, or the Austrian Peoples Party, or Germany's own Left party, which is now regularly welcomed into coalitions.

Not only does the AfD gain from this, but the FDP will now lose likely half of its vote, putting it far below the threshold, and the CDU itself is liable to drop as well. The AfD could rise to 30 seats.

Additionally, all of this would have been very easy to predict from the start. Having the FDP leader be the one who 'wears it' puts that party out of action, and is likely why the AfD likely demanded such a thing happen.

I have no idea what either the FDP or CDU were thinking in this state, but they've managed to pull off the dumbest political move in recent history, and should all be sent back to a Politics 101 course.

Thursday, February 6, 2020

US Impeachment - Just the numbers

I'm not going to wade into the debate over impeaching Presidents. Instead, I am simply going to present the numbers and let you make up your own mind. Note that in the event of multiple articles of impeachment, I am posting either the most available number, or, the one that is the "worst" for the President. Independent Senators and Congressmen are counted with the party which with they caucused. In the event the Independent member in question does not caucus with either party, they is counted with the party that, in majority, voted the same way they did.


House vote:

Yea: 122 R / 4 D
Nay: 45 D / 2 R

Senate vote:

Yea: 35 R
Nay: 10 R / 9 D

Result: Not removed from office.


Committee Vote:

Yea: 21 D / 7 R
Nay: 10 R

Result: Resigned before a House vote could take place.

Assuming Republicans would have broken 7-10 as they did in Committee during the Nixon impeachment, the results could have been as follows:
Yea: 241 D / 79 R
Nay: 113 R
Senate vote:
Yea: 56 D / 18 R
Nay: 26 R
In such a case, the vote would have been successful. 


House vote:

Yea: 223 R / 5 D
Nay: 201 D / 5 R

Senate vote:

Yea: 50 R
Nay: 45 D / 5 R


House vote:

Yea: 228 D
Nay: 192 R / 1 D

Senate vote:

Yea: 47 D / 1 R
Nay: 52 R


Trump, along with the hypothetical successful Nixon, are the only ones to have their own party's Senators vote against them. Additionally, the two are the only ones not to have at least one senator from their opposition party back them.

Monday, February 3, 2020

Irish election - no projections?

I had been hoping to look through a dozen different projections of the Irish elections, made by people in Ireland, but, alas, I can't find any. The only projections I can find are from the Europe Elects twitter account. I've taken those and averaged them, as well as made some of my own adjustments, and I have the following:

48 - FF
35 - FG
34 - SF
12 - Grn
6 - SD
5 - Lab
4 - S/P
3 - I4C
12 - Ind
1 - CC (speaker)

The adjustments I've made are basically to increase FF by taking 1 seat from the 4 largest parties, then lowering SF, which results in FF and FG going up.

So, why increase FF?

Simply it feels like they have 'the big mo' - IE momentum. I think undecided voters will break for them.

Why decrease SF?

The party is still controversial. FF and FG are attacking each other by accusing each other of being willing to work with SF. Keep in mind that Ireland uses a multi-member STV system, this means that transfers between parties is important. From the voters prospective, this means that SF gets ranked low on the ballot. As a result, not as many voters transfer to SF as could transfer to FF or FG.

Lastly, how accurate is this?

Not very. I could make it far more accurate, but doing so would take quite a bit of time. To do so I'd need to start with the last-election results in each seat, consider how many candidates each party is running this time in each seat (which is very important) applying my usual methods to calculate vote change, and lastly, taking transfer values from the last election and doing the math.

It is all quite possible, but it is also quite time consuming, and even in Ireland they are saying that this election isn't grabbing attention the way elections normally do.

Regardless, I'll try to refine the above projection to be better before the election on the 8th