Support NeoGAF

[Sinsem]

Macron has a book too y'know

20 bucks is a bit expensive for a political programm. I bought Northgard for the same price.

Are there any other gems in there like his stance on the Manif pour tous or the even stupider "Le meilleur moyen de se payer un costard, c'est de travailler"?

EDIT

I can't bring myself to think Mélenchon sat down and thought for one second about the steps he'd have to take to bring his sixth republic, or renegotiate EU treaties.

Are you kidding me?
I'll even give you that this has a very low chance of success, but it's actually the most thought out program out there. I'm not saying it makes it the best, but at least some work has been put in there.

 

[G.O.O.]

20 bucks is a bit expensive for a political programm. I bought Northgard for the same price.

Are there any other gems in there like his stance on the Manif pour tous or the even stupider "Le meilleur moyen de se payer un costard, c'est de travailler"?

EDIT


Are you kidding me?
I'll even give you that this has a very low chance of success, but it's actually the most thought out program out there. I'm not saying it makes it the best, but at least some work has been put in there.

What I quoted was from JLM's book too, I believe every major candidate has "written" one. But if you want an actual program it's expected to be out in a few days (on march the 2nd I believe). And believe it or not, some people are working on it too.

I'm having a hard time believing JLM built a program that he'd have to actually apply if elected. Like this for instance

pretty sure he knows the other states would need to approve this, yet the chances they do are exactly zero. His only answer to this is "if they don't we leave", and that's it ? That's not what I call thought out.

 

[Sinsem]

What I quoted was from JLM's book too, I believe every major candidate has "written" one.

L'avenir en commun is available for free on Internet though. And I don't need to buy Fillon's book to know what he is going to do (If he stop backpedaling on social security).
All I know of Macron so far (and I watched a few meetings) is what he's done when he was a minister. And to me, sorry but that's a bit scary.

His only answer to this is "if they don't we leave", and that's it ? That's not what I call thought out.

There is nothing more efficient right now than threatening to quit. If 20% of its economy leave, it's going to be complicated for the EU. So there is a fair bit of leverage, especially with the Brexit catastrophy.
And since yeah, he's capable of doing it, it's scary enough to open negociations. Of course you don't get everything you went for, but who's stupid enough to believe that?
I like the EU, I'd preferer if we stayed in, but if everything goes the opposite direction of what I believe in, i'll take the hit and leave.

On the 6th republic, which you only mention the first time, it's pretty straightforward too. There are dispositions in the constitution to call for the "Assemblée consituante" and then it's a referendum. If people decide to stay in the 5th, well, we stay. Nothing crazy here.

Refusing to vote for someone because you think he cannot do what he says is strange to me, because if you elect him, he will be able to. That's a hard lesson Americans are learning right now. And in France the president has more power.

So we can disagree on what's good or bad, it's obvious we believe in opposite things (you sound like a centrist neo-liberal, I'm a socialist) and I respect that, but this argument is just ridiculous.

EDIT :

the Brexit catastrophy is the exact reason you don't use the "do this or I quit !" leverage.

My understanding is that the UK did quit before negociating anything. They obtained a lot of things through the years though.

 

[Alx]

There is nothing more efficient right now than threatening to quit. If 20% of its economy leave, it's going to be complicated for the EU. So there is a fair bit of leverage, especially with the Brexit catastrophy.

the Brexit catastrophy is the exact reason why you don't use the "do this or I quit !" leverage. Sooner or later someone will call your bluff, and you may lose everything.
I'm fine with people who are against EU and want to quit (I strongly disagree with them, but they're entitled to their opinion and its consequences), but if you really see a benefit in a European union, you don't build it through blackmail.

 

[BaronLundi]

None of the above. That's the thing. I'm one of them, I live in the middle of them, and there is no way they vote for Macron.
The last 5 years had a terrible effect on leftists, they will never vote for Macron. Even if Mélenchon calls for voting against Lepen (like he did in 2012 against Sarkozy).

And this is (one of the reason) why we got Trump and LePen could be elected.

Hollande's presidency was a failure on many many fronts and obviously a gigantic disappointment but nowhere near as bad as the left makes it out to be. And certainly better than Sarkozy's.

Imagining than anything good could come out of LePen being elected, long or short term, is pure madness. This line of reasoning was already in place when it was time to put a Chirac bulletin in the enveloppe (and boy was it difficult, albeit necessary) and I'm really frightened to see this scorched earth mentality progressing.

LePen president would mean a great deal of very real suffering for minorities, LGBT, poors, refugees, workers, unions, women, and most probably everyone except the wealthy. How anyone calling themselves progressive and/or leftists could let that happen in the name of the greater good is just beyond me.

 

[ebil]

None of the above. That's the thing. I'm one of them, I live in the middle of them, and there is no way they vote for Macron.
The last 5 years had a terrible effect on leftists, they will never vote for Macron. Even if Mélenchon calls for voting against Lepen (like he did in 2012 against Sarkozy).

That's...Not true. I'm surrounded with leftists and most of us would be voting Macron just like we voted Chirac, holding our nose. Granted, he's only getting our vote if he makes it to the second round.

Some of the biggest PS die-hards I know are already rooting for him (which I personally find batshit crazy but to each their own). Leftists make up for a very diverse group.

Fillon on the other hand is a tough sell. I would be really scared of he made it past the first round.

Edit: oh, that was a specific reference to JLM voters. Disregard, then.

 

[Coffinhal]

Macron has a book too y'know

Also "at least he has a program" is hardly an argument. As I said it's a bone for non-decided voters, once you're in charge things aren't the same and you have to get rid of the silly stuff to actually govern the country. I can't bring myself to think Mélenchon sat down and thought for one second about the steps he'd have to take to bring his sixth republic, or renegotiate EU treaties.

"actually govern the country" doesn't mean anything. He'll a PM that'll put laws through Parliament and these laws are made of public policies (which are not "silly stuff") that need to be at least in their simplest form be discussed in the public debate BEFORE the election. Otherwise it's just electing a face. Having a platform of policies is important, it's not an election of the best manager. He's going to publish a platform anyway so he "it doesn't matter to have one" argument doesn't stand here.

His book is more of a storytelling piece to target a specific audience (most of his supporters). He changed his mind on some issues since he released the book too.

At least Mélenchon has a detailed platform that can be discussed since december, now we can discuss the numbers (he did 5 hours of explanation/debate last Sunday). You disagree on the stances he had but at least we understand what he'll do. Anyway any debate on this won't bring any nuance so it isn't Worth discussing.

 

[ebil]

"actually govern the country" doesn't mean anything. He'll a PM that'll put laws through Parliament and these laws are made of public policies (which are not "silly stuff") that need to be at least in their simplest form be discussed in the public debate BEFORE the election. Otherwise it's just electing a face. Having a platform of policies is important, it's not an election of the best manager. He's going to publish a platform anyway so he "it doesn't matter to have one" argument doesn't stand here.

His book is more of a storytelling piece to target a specific audience (most of his supporters). He changed his mind on some issues since he released the book too.

I mean: https://twitter.com/GadUltimex/status/834434388297383941

 

[Sinsem]

Hollande's presidency was a failure on many many fronts and obviously a gigantic disappointment but nowhere near as bad as the left makes it out to be. And certainly better than Sarkozy's.

I get that, things could be worse. And I know nothing good comes from the FN.
But I don't want to chose between the lesser of two evil. I'll propably vote NotA on the 2d turn of these elections anyway if its Fillon/Lepen or Macron/Lepen.
Heck, I already did that in 2012 because I didn't want Hollande either. I don't get why he'd got my vote just because I hated Sarkozy more.

How anyone calling themselves progressive and/or leftists could let that happen in the name of the greater good is just beyond me.

The question is "who do you want to run the country", and if the answer is neither of the candidates, then be it. But if Lepen is elected, it's because of the people who voted for her, not because of the ones who didn't want her opponent.
I'm well aware of my privileges, I'm a straight white male who owns his company. I spend a good part of my time trying to get my own employees to fight for their rights. Fillon, Macron, economically I don't care, it's even better. Socially it's unacceptable for me already, and I'll fight against it every day of the week.

 

[Alx]

But I don't want to chose between the lesser of two evil.

I'll never understand that way of thinking. What's wrong with "the lesser of two evils" ? In the end, isn't it better to try to get at least that rather than "the worse of two evils" ?
If you have a clear opinion of which one is "less bad", then it's your responsibility to push for it. Refusing to do so because it's not the perfect scenario you wanted is kind of childish.

 

[G.O.O.]

"actually govern the country" doesn't mean anything. He'll a PM that'll put laws through Parliament and these laws are made of public policies (which are not "silly stuff") that need to be at least in their simplest form be discussed in the public debate BEFORE the election. Otherwise it's just electing a face. Having a platform of policies is important, it's not an election of the best manager. He's going to publish a platform anyway so he "it doesn't matter to have one" argument doesn't stand here.

His book is more of a storytelling piece to target a specific audience (most of his supporters). He changed his mind on some issues since he released the book too.

At least Mélenchon has a detailed platform that can be discussed since december, now we can discuss the numbers (he did 5 hours of explanation/debate last Sunday). You disagree on the stances he had but at least we understand what he'll do. Anyway any debate on this won't bring any nuance so it isn't Worth discussing.

Honestly I believe more and more that voting is a tribal thing. I probably haven't read a program since 2007, maybe once or twice for minor elections. Rest of the time I know who I don't want, and character is a part of it.

Which brings me back to Mélenchon, and why I disagree when you say we know what he'll do. It's obvious he has ambition, as his book covers a lot of stuff that would go far beyond his mandate (interplanetary travel and stuff), and you're right to say we don't just elect a manager. However management is important, moreso for a powerful character like the French president, and I feel JLM just disregards that. If he's president, he'll face an opposition, and he doesn't like opposition. He'll have setbacks, and I have no idea how he'll deal with it. As it is, he has a lot of wishes, but things change and he'll have to adapt. Another crisis happen, what does he do ? A war ? A breakup of the EU ?

So yeah, politics are more than just management but I feel like most candidates just think they can promise whatever they want - ask Fillon who is currently backpedaling on his promises. Earlier today that was Ciotti

Spoiler

tête de couille

who wanted to amend the Constitution to forbid the consultation of jihadist websites. I mean seriously.

 

[Sinsem]

What's wrong with "the lesser of two evils" ?

It's still evil.

Look, it's becoming a bit too much pilosophical, and I'm not good enough to debate that in english ^^. My initial point was, whether you think it's childlish or not, it exists, and it's one of the reasons behind the Mélenchon vote.
And it's not enough people to change the results of this election. I still think Lepen cannot systemically (I'm not sure I have the right word) win this election. But no one should expect the 2002 80/20 either.

If he's president, he'll face an opposition, and he doesn't like opposition. He'll have setbacks, and I have no idea how he'll deal with it. As it is, he has a lot of wishes, but things change and he'll have to adapt. Another crisis happen, what does he do ? A war ? A breakup of the EU ?

You can apply these questions to any candidate.

 

[G.O.O.]

You can apply these questions to any candidate.

To most of them. But they're public figures, and we have records of how they've dealt with things in the past.

Extreme example, but you didn't need to check Trump's program to understand how he currently runs the administration

 

[G.O.O.]

Jadot is out and joins Hamon

http://www.rtl.fr/actu/politique/pr...once-son-ralliement-a-benoit-hamon-7787394943

 

[Simplet]

EDIT :

My understanding is that the UK did quit before negociating anything. They obtained a lot of things through the years though.

If that's your understanding you haven't been paying attention. Cameron had been trying to renegociate with the UE for years, pretty much since he was elected. Here is a random article from 2014, containing a quote from 2012 predicting that Cameron would fail : http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/where-clegg-and-farage-agree-camerons-eu-renegotiation-plan-fantasy

Of course it's not even true that Cameron got noting, he got some minor opt-outs with benefits for EU migrants and the like, but certainly he didn't get anything close to the end of the freedom of movement and was killed by hiw own voters for it.

Try to imagine for a second how you will blackmail Europe into accepting protectionism. It would be like trying to blackmail NATO into letting you opt out of defending the other members, it's completely absurd.

 

[Magni]

I get that, things could be worse. And I know nothing good comes from the FN.
But I don't want to chose between the lesser of two evil. I'll propably vote NotA on the 2d turn of these elections anyway if its Fillon/Lepen or Macron/Lepen.
Heck, I already did that in 2012 because I didn't want Hollande either. I don't get why he'd got my vote just because I hated Sarkozy more.




The question is "who do you want to run the country", and if the answer is neither of the candidates, then be it. But if Lepen is elected, it's because of the people who voted for her, not because of the ones who didn't want her opponent.
I'm well aware of my privileges, I'm a straight white male who owns his company. I spend a good part of my time trying to get my own employees to fight for their rights. Fillon, Macron, economically I don't care, it's even better. Socially it's unacceptable for me already, and I'll fight against it every day of the week.

That's just not true though. In a two person race, the only people who can claim they weren't responsible for the outcome were those who voted for the loser. Those who vote for the winner, those who vote blank, those who spoil their ballot, and those who don't show up at all are responsible.

When it comes to voting, "none of the above" means "all of the above". It means you're fine with either. If you're not fine with Le Pen, then swallow your pride and vote against her. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[whyamihere]

Jadot is out and joins Hamon

http://www.rtl.fr/actu/politique/pr...once-son-ralliement-a-benoit-hamon-7787394943

I feel like everyone's finally understanding the actual stakes of the election.

 

[mo60]

It looks like Macron's poll numbers may be recovering now.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-poll-idUSKBN16208I

 

[Ether_Snake]

I think it's more likely that the sixth Republic will be a non-hereditary monarchy, for one generation at most, than anything else. There is nothing in sight that would allow a reversal of the current direction. It is always just a matter of how fast things fall.

Add to this all the global issues, I think many developed countries will eventually fall into dictatorships or back to affirmed monarchies in some form, at least for a short time.

 

[Alx]

A monarchy in France ? Lol, not happening before at least a century. We're still a country where kids are taught that beheading the king and aristocrats and parading their heads on pikes was a good thing.
Also who would be our beloved monarch, when we love to hate anybody in charge ?
The 5th republic is already the closest we could get to monarchy in the last century. That was built on de Gaulle's huge popularity at the end of WWII and image of "providential man", and even then he got highly criticized for it with suspicions of wanting to create a military dictatorship. And since then we've mostly worked towards weakening the importance of the president rather than increasing it.

 

[Coffinhal]

Honestly I believe more and more that voting is a tribal thing. I probably haven't read a program since 2007, maybe once or twice for minor elections. Rest of the time I know who I don't want, and character is a part of it.

Which brings me back to Mélenchon, and why I disagree when you say we know what he'll do. It's obvious he has ambition, as his book covers a lot of stuff that would go far beyond his mandate (interplanetary travel and stuff), and you're right to say we don't just elect a manager. However management is important, moreso for a powerful character like the French president, and I feel JLM just disregards that. If he's president, he'll face an opposition, and he doesn't like opposition. He'll have setbacks, and I have no idea how he'll deal with it. As it is, he has a lot of wishes, but things change and he'll have to adapt. Another crisis happen, what does he do ? A war ? A breakup of the EU ?

So yeah, politics are more than just management but I feel like most candidates just think they can promise whatever they want - ask Fillon who is currently backpedaling on his promises. Earlier today that was Ciotti

Spoiler

tête de couille

who wanted to amend the Constitution to forbid the consultation of jihadist websites. I mean seriously.

About "opposition", "setbacks", how can you know how people will deal with it ? I don't know how Macron, Le Pen, Mélenchon, Fillon or Hamon will deal with that, and they probably don't know neither because it's linked to a context.
Again, lots of caricature with Mélenchon. You just described him as authoritharian (having an with "opposition") and bellicist (could he launch a war after a crisis of the eurozone?). These cerebral images seem a bit off-ground to me. He never had to deal with an opposition since he never led a majority ; and he is against most wars.

That's just not true though. In a two person race, the only people who can claim they weren't responsible for the outcome were those who voted for the loser. Those who vote for the winner, those who vote blank, those who spoil their ballot, and those who don't show up at all are responsible.

When it comes to voting, "none of the above" means "all of the above". It means you're fine with either. If you're not fine with Le Pen, then swallow your pride and vote against her. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I'll always have an issue with people criminalizing other's people voting. When you read sociology papers on how people vote or don't vote, you can see that lots of non-voting people have this habit because they pursposefully chose to do so. In other words, blame the electoral and political system as a whole, not individuals who are tired of the rules of a fake democracy.

 

[Sinsem]

That's just not true though. In a two person race, the only people who can claim they weren't responsible for the outcome were those who voted for the loser.

I strongly disagree sorry. In our hypothetic exemple, if no one voted for Lepen, Macron would win. That's what I mean when I say the people responsible are the one who vote for her. You would not care at all for my vote in that case would you?
It's up to him to convince me to get my vote. So far, he didn't (and oh boy this morning with Bourdin didn't help).

When it comes to voting, "none of the above" means "all of the above". It means you're fine with either.

Certainly not. It means that either way, I'm NOT fine. If I'm fine with either, I flip a coin and vote.

 

[G.O.O.]

About "opposition", "setbacks", how can you know how people will deal with it ? I don't know how Macron, Le Pen, Mélenchon, Fillon or Hamon will deal with that, and they probably don't know neither because it's linked to a context.
Again, lots of caricature with Mélenchon. You just described him as authoritharian (having an with "opposition") and bellicist (could he launch a war after a crisis of the eurozone?). These cerebral images seem a bit off-ground to me. He never had to deal with an opposition since he never led a majority ; and he is against most wars.

First I meant "how would he deal with a crisis, or a war, or the breakup of the EU", my sentence was poorly written.

As I said earlier, you didn't have to read Trump's program to guess how he would handle his administration - extreme example, I know, but you see what I mean. JLM has (/used to have according to my friends who support him) a rough relationship with the press, and last times only got better because he learned to use youtube where he can speak freely with no one to contradict him. I don't think he's a bellicist, I think he's someone who sees negociation as a form of compromission, and believe that (some of the) people who disagree with him are just either sold to the Capital of plain fascists.

That kind of reasoning is also why I trust Fillon to be a better president than Sarkozy, even if their ideas were quite close (and very, very far from mine, I can assure you). Fillon is not an authoritarian bully like Sarkozy, and understands when some of his ideas need to be adjusted, or left out of politics, like his stance on abortion.

 

[DiipuSurotu]

If Le Pen is elected she will rule over you. It's as simple as that. It doesn't matter if you consider yourself "responsible" for it.

 

[Coffinhal]

Interresting data

See how big are the reports for Fillon>Le Pen in the case where Fillon does not make it to the 2nd round ? Around 1/3 of his electorate
Few Hamon-Macorn-Mélenchon supporters are turning to Le Pen in both cases, although if Fillon makes it then the three electorate are almost equally going into non-voting/white vote and Fillon
In both cases Le Pen doesn't add up much voters compared to Fillon and Macron who almost double or double their 1st round score
Although the poll doesn't seem to count people that might vote on the 2nd round but not in the first

http://opinionlab.opinion-way.com/d...PI-Resultats-de-la-semaine-du-20-au-24-02.pdf

 

[G.O.O.]

Those who vote for le pen on round 1 and then for her opponent are probably the same who spent money on the primaries to cast a blank vote

 

[Coffinhal]

Those who vote for le pen on round 1 and then for her opponent are probably the same who spent money on the primaries to cast a blank vote

Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't bet on that.

I met people who said they'd vote for the FN in the first round and then look closely at the platforms and what were the "values" of the candidates so they can chose who is fit to govern and have "authority". It's 2% and 3% each time though, she loses more people than Fillon and Macron who keep 98%, but that's juste 2-3 more %.

 

[Alx]

Certainly not. It means that either way, I'm NOT fine. If I'm fine with either, I flip a coin and vote.

If you don't voice any preference one way or another, not being fine with either is exactly the same as being fine with any of them.
If someone asks you "we're having either sushi or pizza tonight, which one do you prefer ?" and you answer "I don't care", then you're tacitly accepting the choice that others will make for you.

 

[G.O.O.]

I just realised we were basically debating a trolley dilemma

 

[Coffinhal]

French magistrate to investigate Francois Fillon

A magistrate is to investigate French centre-right presidential candidate Francois Fillon over payments to his family, prosecutors say.
By involving a magistrate in what had so far been a preliminary probe led by police, the prosecutors are putting more resources into the investigation.
They are looking into whether he paid large sums to his wife for "fake jobs".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39084865?ocid=socialflow_twitter

Fillon soon :

 

[mo60]

I guess Fillon's presidential ambitions is probably going to go even further down the drain in the next few weeks or so because of this magistrate.

 

[Coffinhal]

I guess Fillon's presidential ambitions is probably going to go even further down the drain in the next few weeks or so because of this magistrate.

He'll lose the undecided voters and will miss the moment when everyone is chosing who they'll vote for. He doesn't have the momentum anymore, what he says or propose doesn't matter.

What he says is only here to keep the voters that don't want Macron or Le Pen (mostly conservative old people from the middle-class) and hopes that Macron falls harder than him before the election. He'll try Something in next month's debate I believe but that's going to be hard for him.

What I'm worried about is what'll happen after the election for right-wing

If the right-wing loses the election once again it's going to be a nightmare because Macron will get the center-right with him (he's going to have Villepin soon, but when right-wing people that have seats in Parliament will understand that they need to be re-elected, they'll go straight up to Macron before or after he wins). There's going to be a major shakeup that many believed would happen in 2012. Le Pen, especially if she's doind >40 or close to 45 in the second round, will try to get a part of the right and build herself as the 1st opponent with the 33% of the electorate that'll vote for her in the second round against Macron. Being 1st opponent means she'll have seats to give in the other elections especially if the right-wing party is divided. That's the worst case scenario but that and the defeat of the Parti Socialiste will really change the political spectrum.

Good news for the left is that the ideology is finally rather radical with real democracy, keynesian economics and strong ecologic public policies. Bad news is that Hamon and Mélenchon have two very different stratégies and one is compromised with what did Hollande. They can't be united this time, but what is important is how a real left agenda has taken the power and will define an alternative for the years to come.

But things can still change a lot, I wouldn't have bet that Bayrou would be joining Macron for instance. Exciting times.

 

[mo60]

He'll lose the undecided voters and will miss the moment when everyone is chosing who they'll vote for. He doesn't have the momentum anymore, what he says or propose doesn't matter.

What he says is only here to keep the voters that don't want Macron or Le Pen (mostly conservative old people from the middle-class) and hopes that Macron falls harder than him before the election. He'll try Something in next month's debate I believe but that's going to be hard for him.

What I'm worried about is what'll happen after the election for right-wing

If the right-wing loses the election once again it's going to be a nightmare because Macron will get the center-right with him (he's going to have Villepin soon, but when right-wing people that have seats in Parliament will understand that they need to be re-elected, they'll go straight up to Macron before or after he wins). There's going to be a major shakeup that many believed would happen in 2012. Le Pen, especially if she's doind >40 or close to 45 in the second round, will try to get a part of the right and build herself as the 1st opponent with the 33% of the electorate that'll vote for her in the second round against Macron. Being 1st opponent means she'll have seats to give in the other elections especially if the right-wing party is divided. That's the worst case scenario but that and the defeat of the Parti Socialiste will really change the political spectrum.

Good news for the left is that the ideology is finally rather radical with real democracy, keynesian economics and strong ecologic public policies. Bad news is that Hamon and Mélenchon have two very different stratégies and one is compromised with what did Hollande. They can't be united this time, but what is important is how a real left agenda has taken the power and will define an alternative for the years to come.

But things can still change a lot, I wouldn't have bet that Bayrou would be joining Macron for instance. Exciting times.

i have a feeling les republicans is screwed right now for the june elections but i don't think le pen and the fn will benefit from it much, but macron and his party will benefit from it mostly.

 

[Palette Swap]

He'll lose the undecided voters and will miss the moment when everyone is chosing who they'll vote for. He doesn't have the momentum anymore, what he says or propose doesn't matter.

What he says is only here to keep the voters that don't want Macron or Le Pen (mostly conservative old people from the middle-class) and hopes that Macron falls harder than him before the election. He'll try Something in next month's debate I believe but that's going to be hard for him.

What I'm worried about is what'll happen after the election for right-wing

If the right-wing loses the election once again it's going to be a nightmare because Macron will get the center-right with him (he's going to have Villepin soon, but when right-wing people that have seats in Parliament will understand that they need to be re-elected, they'll go straight up to Macron before or after he wins). There's going to be a major shakeup that many believed would happen in 2012. Le Pen, especially if she's doind >40 or close to 45 in the second round, will try to get a part of the right and build herself as the 1st opponent with the 33% of the electorate that'll vote for her in the second round against Macron. Being 1st opponent means she'll have seats to give in the other elections especially if the right-wing party is divided. That's the worst case scenario but that and the defeat of the Parti Socialiste will really change the political spectrum.

Good news for the left is that the ideology is finally rather radical with real democracy, keynesian economics and strong ecologic public policies. Bad news is that Hamon and Mélenchon have two very different stratégies and one is compromised with what did Hollande. They can't be united this time, but what is important is how a real left agenda has taken the power and will define an alternative for the years to come.

But things can still change a lot, I wouldn't have bet that Bayrou would be joining Macron for instance. Exciting times.

You know, reading your post made me realize that in the end, Patrick Buisson's view of a unified, nationalist, ultra conservative right might come to pass. On the one hand, it's chilling, but on the other hand, we'd finally know where we stand. Honestly, when you listen to people like Ciotti or Morano, it's pretty hard to tell the difference with Le Pen.

 

[Koren]

but macron and his party

He has one? That's news...

Also, he seems to go down, now...

 

[G.O.O.]

You know, reading your post made me realize that in the end, Patrick Buisson's view of a unified, nationalist, ultra conservative right might come to pass. On the one hand, it's chilling, but on the other hand, we'd finally know where we stand. Honestly, when you listen to people like Ciotti or Morano, it's pretty hard to tell the difference with Le Pen.

not so sure about that. The FN itself has enough discipline to keep itself united for the next elections but if the MLP/Philippot line fails, they might walk into trouble. Philippot is not as popular as he makes it look like.

For les républicains, there's also discipline among the voters but the juppéistes and the liberals leaving for Macron are quite telling. And I'm not sure they'd follow MLP in her defense of the welfare state and her euroscepticism.

As of now the party equilibrium is dead, and if Macron wins the political landscape is probably in for a big change. For the better imo, but maybe I'm too optimistic.

 

[Mac_Lane]

He has one? That's news...

Also, he seems to go down, now...

Yes he does. It just reached 200 000 members.

And seems like he's not going down

 

[Koren]

Yes he does. It just reached 200 000 members.

We can argue about what is or isn't a party but... counting as members any people who said online they share the ideas and left an email, an address and a phone number feels like inflating the numbers to me.

(Don't take me wrong, I'm not fond of Macron, but talking of lesser evil, I think it fits... I probably share Bayrou's feeling on this. I still think the foundations aren't sound, and there's an awful lot of marketing behind all this)

 

[G.O.O.]

It's kind of a blitzkrieg campaign made to harvest voters from the center. Sure, leaving an email is a low form of engagement but people probably wouldn't invest themselves much with a newcomer candidate who has everything to prove. It's not like he would be the first one.

Authueil made a good paper on this (in French, obviously, sorry English readers). Maybe a bit too macronphile but still interesting on his method => http://authueil.fr/post/2017/02/17/La-disruption-d-Emmanuel-Macron

 

[Magni]

I'll always have an issue with people criminalizing other's people voting. When you read sociology papers on how people vote or don't vote, you can see that lots of non-voting people have this habit because they pursposefully chose to do so. In other words, blame the electoral and political system as a whole, not individuals who are tired of the rules of a fake democracy.

I'm not criminalizing anyone here, I'm just calling bullshit on those who would let disaster happen and then deny any responsibility in said-disaster occurring.

I certainly won't disagree with you that the system is far from perfect. But it is what it is, letting Le Pen become president just because you don't like the system is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I strongly disagree sorry. In our hypothetic exemple, if no one voted for Lepen, Macron would win. That's what I mean when I say the people responsible are the one who vote for her. You would not care at all for my vote in that case would you?
It's up to him to convince me to get my vote. So far, he didn't (and oh boy this morning with Bourdin didn't help).




Certainly not. It means that either way, I'm NOT fine. If I'm fine with either, I flip a coin and vote.

If people preferred Le Pen to Macron, and didn't vote, than yes they would be responsible for Macron winning. By responsibility here, I mean not being allowed to complain about the result. I mean others are allowed to call them out for the result.

As for the second part: in our current system, blank votes don't matter. Abstention doesn't matter. All that matters is who gets an absolute majority of the valid votes. There is no way in our current system to say "none of the above". If only 50% of the population votes in the second round, doesn't matter, the president still gets elected. If only 50% of the votes are valid, doesn't matter, the president still gets elected.

Personally, I'd rather we switch to ranked-voting with a none-of-the-above option. If none-of-the-above wins, hold new elections (with all candidates barred from re-participating). But that's not how it works today. So go vote.

 

[Simplet]

Not voting is to voting for Le Pen what "non assistance à personne en danger" is to murder.

You didn't exactly cause their suffering, but you could have saved all the people that are going to get fucked and you chose to just watch them die instead.

 

[mo60]

not so sure about that. The FN itself has enough discipline to keep itself united for the next elections but if the MLP/Philippot line fails, they might walk into trouble. Philippot is not as popular as he makes it look like.

For les républicains, there's also discipline among the voters but the juppéistes and the liberals leaving for Macron are quite telling. And I'm not sure they'd follow MLP in her defense of the welfare state and her euroscepticism.

As of now the party equilibrium is dead, and if Macron wins the political landscape is probably in for a big change. For the better imo, but maybe I'm too optimistic.

I just hope Macron winning the presidential election hurts the FN enough that they aren't a threat in the 2022 presidential elections. I just don't want to see the Marine Le Pen or another FN presidential candidate in the second round again in 2022.

Also le pen is likely to hide from any investigations connected to her until after the election.

 

[BKK]

I'm not convinced that the left will vote for a Thatcherite. After all, economically, Le Pen is left wing. Polls look close enough that Le Pen could well beat Fillon in second round, especially if the polls aren't picking up "shy" voters as they haven't in other western elections. If Macron makes second round I see him winning easily.

 

[Coffinhal]

I'm not convinced that the left will vote for a Thatcherite. After all, economically, Le Pen is left wing. Polls look close enough that Le Pen could well beat Fillon in second round, especially if the polls aren't picking up "shy" voters as they haven't in other western elections. If Macron makes second round I see him winning easily.

That doesn't mean anything really. It's kind of the cliché that you hear everyday or on BFMTV, or from right-wing/free-marketeers who find an easy argument here.

Also about polls, on the same page I posted that :

There's a good chunk of Mélenchon-Hamon 1st round voters that'd vote for Fillon in the 2nd, and even more from Macron. Pollsters are already getting Le Pen higher than what comes out of the poll first because of bias from "shy" voters as you say, although these bias are less and less present.

There's Nothing that shows that Le Pen could win over Fillon in the 2nd round.

 

[Holden]

new polls

http://www.odoxa.fr/sondage/preside...on-reprend-lavantage-fillon-redevient-favori/

2 Other polls showing the same increase for Macron


The Bayrou boost sure helping him out

 

[Gurgelhals]

dat Fillon drop

 

[DiipuSurotu]

Macron overtaking Le Pen in the first round would be glorious.

 

[Ether_Snake]

A part of Mélanchon's votes probably end up going to Le Pen. He's like Sanders, all about the economy, so his voters can end up voting for Trump when they don't like the other, especially in this case since Le Pen appeals to some of them on the economic side.

Still doubtful that she would win in the second round, but it's still far away and a lot can happen still.

 

[G.O.O.]

A part of Mélanchon's votes probably end up going to Le Pen. He's like Sanders, all about the economy, so his voters can end up voting for Trump when they don't like the other, especially in this case since Le Pen appeals to some of them on the economic side.

A small part. See coffinhal's post.

The economics aren't that far between MLP and JLM but they are not that relevant in people's votes, for historical and demographic reasons.

 

[whyamihere]

new polls

http://www.odoxa.fr/sondage/preside...on-reprend-lavantage-fillon-redevient-favori/

2 Other polls showing the same increase for Macron


The Bayrou boost sure helping him out

Oh man. Fillon is collapsing.