- 6,067
- Simcoeace
Macron is like Bernie Sanders of France. That's why he won.
Macron is nothing at all like Bernie Sanders.
Macron is like Bernie Sanders of France. That's why he won.
Dunno. But at the very least he's more inspiring than Hillary Clinton in my eyes.Macron is nothing at all like Bernie Sanders.
I didn't mention the voters, only the candidates...Well, just as everyone who voted for Trump was not sexist, racist, & xenophobic, not everyone who voted for Le Pen is a fascist.
That's not how it works.I think it did show that, when push comes to shove, a significant majority of the French people (what I'm reading is 66% to 34%) rejected nationalism in favour of an expansive, liberal, pro-European outlook.
Macron primarily studied Philosophy (Postgraduate Degree), then Political Sciences, then Administration. He's 39, never oriented himself to become a banker but was hire from a banker who crossed his path and saw a "brilliant man" in him. He worked as a banker for less than 3 years, won a lot of money, then quit to work in administration and politic. He left the big earning behind: he's an unusual political animal, but that doesn't fit well in the predefined slots that demagogues like Le Pen took years to shape...The problem I have with Macron is that he is a former banker
Maybe, but maybe not.I don't think fascism has been quite as defeated as the usual crowd on Twitter would have everyone believe.
Maybe, but maybe not.
A few months ago, the rise of populism and the far-right seemed far-fetched, but they gradually gained momentum. Following the Brexit referendum and Trump's win, the chances of other populist and far-right candidates was rated reasonably highly. But now Wilders and Le Pen have been defeated, and the four big elections - Brexit, America, the Netherlands and France - are over. Germany is next, but after that, the cycle begins again. How do the populists and the far right respond? How will the political landscape change between now and the next round of elections?
I didn't say that. I said that the populists and nationalists had been defeated, and that the political landscape can and will change. The populists and nationalists aren't the only ones who can address unemployment, globalisation and immigration, even if they would like us to believe that they are.Now that the problems of unemployment, globalism and immigration are done, gone, over and solved, we will be troubled no more by populism and nationalism.
The populists and nationalists aren't the only ones who can address unemployment, globalisation and immigration, even if they would like us to believe that they are.
Not exactly, no. Second round gave 66.1% of valid votes cast to Macron.Second round gave 66,1 % to Macron
Are you suggesting that you can count votes not cast as votes that might have been cast? Only you can't - they weren't cast, so they can't be counted as if they were simply because that's how people voted according to polls.with a 2.5% hidden reserve in Blank (estimated from blank voters that would have voted for him if polls shows a decent Le Pen probability to win), plus a few % in non voters (same reasons).
Voting consist of putting a paper with a single name in an enveloppe, in both first and second round:
Also I was curious as to how France managed to announce the winner so rapidly after the close of voting.
When you enter the voting bureau you show your identity card and "carte électorale". Then you take an envelope and the names that are presented generally. You go into the votingcabin where you put one name in the enveloppe. The rest you leave behind. Go back to box where your vote will be verified with you signing to have voted confirmed by local authority.or were the piles left in the booth and you took the one you wanted?
...it doesn't stop you to consider voting for racist and xenophobes like if they were the only ones to have alternative stance over economic and social matters.I am not racist nor xenophobe but
A voters is supposed to take one of each ballot then go to the booth and put the one he want.I was curious about this, did every voter get given all the pieces of paper at the front desk then put the candidate they wanted in the envelope in a booth and discard the rest... or were the piles left in the booth and you took the one you wanted? Because if those piles were in any way visible you could see which one was 'going down' and it could possibly influence your choice.
Most of voting places closes 1 hour before the big cities. The first allowed published results at 8pm are a combination of polls made during the day at the exit of voting places (what we read in non french media hours before the 8pm result), and projections made from the first results (unlike what i saw in UK for Brexit and US, theses results are corrected to try to match the final result).Also I was curious as to how France managed to announce the winner so rapidly after the close of voting. Do you do electronic counting or something? In the UK it takes us the whole damn night and usually half of the next day to reach a result!
...it doesn't stop you to consider voting for racist and xenophobes like if they were the only ones to have alternative stance over economic and social matters.
Am I the only one who has noticed how often people say this before going on to say something racist or xenophobic?I am not racist nor xenophobe but
No, i'm not suggesting that, i'm taking into account the public stance of some first round voters that said there is no equal sign between Le Pen and Macron but that they wouldn't put Macron ballot in order to have him make the smaller winning score in order to prepare the battle for the parliamentary election. By "some" first round voters, i mostly count Melenchon's voters (+19% in 1st round) that made a public vote about that between two rounds:Are you suggesting that you can count votes not cast as votes that might have been cast? Only you can't - they weren't cast, so they can't be counted as if they were simply because that's how people voted according to polls.
That's explain why you absolutely want to reinstate null and blank and gone-fishing-that-day voters in the result.I specifically spoiled my ballot at every general election I've voted in. You can't count my spoiled ballot as a vote for my local winning MP because that's how local people voted so it would have been how I voted if I had. Nor can you count it for the winning national party because that's how people voted nationally so it would have been how I voted if I had. It's not a vote for anyone.
After how many times hearing "fire burns!" should we say it's getting old and decide to put a hand in the fire?Please...it is really getting old
Not in my experience.Racist and xenophobe also seem words that are "missused" by many at the slightest opportunity.
Do not believe for a second that you may speak for me.In the example below, you would conclude that
Not at all.you're making circonvolutions to try to make a point.
Simple. They are voters and they make up the electorate.That's explain why you absolutely want to reinstate null and blank and gone-fishing-that-day voters in the result.
So I'm not sure why you're objecting to the fact I'm pointing out that 16.5% of the entire French electorate picked the fascist as a first choice.i remember being frightened to know than 10% of people i cross* in the street were voting for his father, 25 years ago, see where we are now...
After how many times hearing "fire burns!" should we say it's getting old and decide to put a hand in the fire?
Do not believe for a second that you may speak for me.
In your example, more people preferred green as a first choice than blue when given all the options. Do you disagree?
In your example, more people preferred blue as a first choice than green when given an either/or option between blue and green. Do you disagree?
Not at all.
One cannot say that 66% of people voted for Macron and 34% voted for Le Pen, because they didn't.
Simple. They are voters and they make up the electorate.
If you're going to say how voters voted, you need to say how they all voted. All votes, cast and not cast, are important. You must count them and not, as you tried, arbitrarily reassign them according to trends.
If you want to focus on the fact that, of the valid votes cast, two-thirds opted to vote for someone other than the fascist in an either/or choice, go ahead and do so. To ignore the facts that out of all people eligible to vote, less than a fifth chose that guy while a sixth chose the fascist (a two point gap), the fascist finished first in 37% of constituencies (a four point gap) and in a single generation the fascist has doubled the support her father got, with the parliamentary election to come, would be dangerously naive.
From what you said earlier, you're not ignoring these facts:
So I'm not sure why you're objecting to the fact I'm pointing out that 16.5% of the entire French electorate picked the fascist as a first choice.
In a free election, ten times as much of the French electorate chose a fascist as in the UK local elections last week. That should worry people about the rise of fascism in France. Instead they are today celebrating the kicking that they think the fascists got.
My affirmation about your supposed conclusion was rhetorical and opposite to what i actually expected from you, this in order to point you to an error in your logic.Do not believe for a second that you may speak for me.
No: 49% chose blue in the first round vs 25% green. Voters had a choice between several tints of blue but only one tint of green, and you ignore that key difference. So any conclusion you're making from reading results of the two most voted tints is irrelevant, so is for Le Pen and Macron first round result.In your example, more people preferred green as a first choice than blue when given all the options. Do you disagree?
You indeed can't unless you're using a more specific term than "people". Like "votes expressed" ("suffrages exprimés").One cannot say that 66% of people voted for Macron and 34% voted for Le Pen, because they didn't.
That's is NOT a trend nor a polling, it's an estimation based on an actual vote set by France Insoumise formation, which has been confirmed in election by comparison with previous elections. And i even didn't sum them up and gave a resulting number, so i didn't try to skew anything, just wanted to inform non specialist of french politic that there was a small reserve for votes in favor of Macron.If you're going to say how voters voted, you need to say how they all voted. All votes, cast and not cast, are important. You must count them and not, as you tried, arbitrarily reassign them according to trends.
What mostly differs from Le Pen and Melenchon programs are xenophobic bits. And yet a lot of "i'm not racist, proof is i have a black friend" voters choose Le Pen. I wonder why.I could ask you the same thing can't I. We simply disagree, me because of Macron's program. You, I am not sure.
The problem is that fascism is a horse that's very much alive and kicking. The French voting results are fairly stark evidence of it, but it rather seems like everyone thinks that because Le Pen finished second to (by a long way from) Macron, it's a spent force - instead of paying attention to the fact she got enough votes to make it through to the run-off thanks to 16.5% of all French voters picking her, and secured nearly 11 million votes.I think you're flogging a dead horse here.
Again, you're talking about voters rather than candidates for some reason. I'm talking about the candidatesIt seems to me fairly clear that there is a substantial block of French voters (22.1%) who enthusiastically embrace Le Pen, a percentage of whom could probably be described accurately as being "fascists".
All of these numbers are a minority. There's no majority anywhere here.This is not a small number, but it's distinctly a minority.
Whatever your intent, you speak for you and not for others. And you did not point out any errors.My affirmation about your supposed conclusion was rhetorical and opposite to what i actually expected from you, this in order to point you to an error in your logic.
What?No: 49% chose blue in the first round vs 25% green. Voters had a choice between several tints of blue but only one tint of green, and you ignore that key difference.
Are you attempting to suggest that some of the candidates were in fact the same as Macron, so a vote for them was really for Macron? The questions there are fairly obvious - were there no differences in the platforms and if not, why were they even there, diluting the vote?So any conclusion you're making from reading results of the two most voted tints is irrelevant, so is for Le Pen and Macron first round result.
Well at least now you're getting the hang of why I keep mentioning the turnout...You indeed can't unless you're using a more specific term than "people". Like "votes expressed" ("suffrages exprimés").
Nevertheless, these votes were not cast and cannot be counted as if they were! If they were really votes for Macron, they'd have been actually case for Macron.That's is NOT a trend nor a polling, it's an estimation based on an actual vote set by France Insoumise formation, which has been confirmed in election by comparison with previous elections. And i even didn't sum them up and gave a resulting number, so i didn't try to skew anything, just wanted to inform non specialist of french politic that there was a small reserve for votes in favor of Macron.