Support NeoGAF

[Alx]

Do you even know what kind of law he did with the government ? the hate isn't gratuitous.

Never understood the reactions to his laws to be honest. Obviously not everybody can't be happy with the consequences, but they're not that bad.
It feels like people blame the liberal parts out of principle, but in that case it also allows for cheaper transports, easier driving licensing, easier ruling in the workplace...

 

[Cabaratier]

Do you even know what kind of law he did with the government ? the hate isn't gratuitous.

Based on the English information I could quickly find, it doesn't seem like bad legislative changes. Compared to most countries in the world, even West-European/Rhenish countries, employee protection in France seems to be (and remain) pretty solid.

http://www.euractiv.com/section/soc...what-can-economists-say-about-the-macron-law/

http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/...bour-legislation-the-macron-and-rebsamen-laws

https://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2015/03/09/5-things-about-the-macron-law-2/

As I lack experience on the ground in France about the actual effects of the law, my opinion could be wrong, ofcourse. Can you explain to me how this law has negatively affected people?

 

[Magni]

Some of it may be propaganda, but it's also natural reaction (not that it's a good thing). Since he doesn't claim to be of a specific "side" and has no history as leader, most people who already feel affiliated to a party see him as an opponent, so the instinctive first reaction is negative. Also let's be honest, he doesn't really ooze charisma, which doesn't help.

But there are definitely some shady innuendos too, like a commentator said, "nobody would mention his past in the bank that much if it had been the Crédit Agricole". For some reason you always hear the "Rothschild" keyword. Think also about the infamous caricature from the LR side too that was quickly taken down, and there is still some latent antisemitism there, conscious or not (I don't even know if Macron belongs to a specific religion, and don't care).
And like I said earlier, that banker profile seems important for Macron in the eyes of many people, when few people ever mentioned it for Emmanuelli...

Yeah, the far-left and far-right hate him because he was a banker and that's the worst occupation there is (in their eyes). You''ll see a lot on the far-right especially denigrate him as a "globalist". (ooohh scary word)

Those on the left and right hate him because he's stealing their voters, from both the PS and LR. But really, I think center-right voters should be happy he's in the race, since Fillon is such a horrible candidate.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It's pretty reasonable to be concerned that the political professions are dominated by a certain class, usually the very wealthy. Politics has a representative role as well as a functional role; we want see people like us and not just people condescending to act for us (see: Labour's problem in the UK). It is a fairly legitimate criticism of Macron that he comes from the same old coterie that has dominated France for such a long while - what does he understand of just about scrimping by and knowing that your child's life will probably be worse than your own? Knowing that your community's economy is falling apart thanks to cheaper competition from abroad and increasing automation? It was Macron-ist policies that have lead to the situation where the FN is performing so well - I don't find the prospect of more of the same encouraging. He might win this time; but the FN might win the next.

Hamon suffers from the same problem, even. No more Science Po.

 

[sbkodama]

Based on the English information I could quickly find, it doesn't seem like bad legislative changes. Compared to most countries in the world, even West-European/Rhenish countries, employee protection in France seems to be (and remain) pretty solid.

As I lack experience on the ground in France about the actual effects of the law, my opinion could be wrong, ofcourse. Can you explain to me how this law has negatively affected people?

One can be that not everyone think negotiation per enterprise will be in favor of the workers, especially with the kind of unemployement france have right know.

 

[Cabaratier]

One can be that not everyone think negotiation per enterprise will be in favor of the workers, especially with the kind of unemployement france have right know.

I see, so until Macron changed the law, there could be no firm-specific collective labour agreements, but only industry-wide?

 

[Alx]

It's pretty reasonable to be concerned that the political professions are dominated by a certain class, usually the very wealthy.

The thing is, Macron isn't even especially wealthy, by regular standards. Even Mélenchon (on paper) has more wealth than him. Never mind Le Pen and Fillon, of course.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The thing is, Macron isn't even especially wealthy, by regular standards. Even Mélenchon (on paper) has more wealth than him. Never mind Le Pen and Fillon, of course.

They only had to declare certain types of assets and did not include a declaration of of income, which is important when considering someone's wealth over their lifetime rather than as a snapshot. I am deeply unconvinced by the notion that Macron 'isn't especially wealthy'.

 

[ebil]

The thing is, Macron isn't even especially wealthy, by regular standards. Even Mélenchon (on paper) has more wealth than him. Never mind Le Pen and Fillon, of course.

Come on now, you can't compare someone who's 39 with someone who's 65 like it's equivalent when it comes to wealth.

Their respective age and career explain the difference, but it doesn't change the meaning of wealth.

Okay, I'm giving up on this thread up again. lol.

 

[Alx]

Come on now, you can't compare someone who's 39 with someone who's 65 like it's equivalent when it comes to wealth.

Their respective age and career explain the difference, but it doesn't change the meaning of wealth.

 

[KingSnake]

Shouldn't the discussion be about how someone achieved the level of wealth rather than the actual level of wealth itself?

If there is nothing illegal or morally wrong about how, why it's an issue?

Or everybody who has a decent wealth is bad and everybody who is poor is good?

Also the notion that everybody who works in a bank is corrupt or has bad intentions is quite strange.

 

[Magni]

Shouldn't the discussion be about how someone achieved the level of wealth rather than the actual level of wealth itself?

If there is nothing illegal or morally wrong about how, why it's an issue?

Or everybody who has a decent wealth is bad and everybody who is poor is bad?

Also the notion that everybody who works in a bank is corrupt or has bad intentions is quite strange.

It's very common in French culture. People are suspicious of anyone with money. And you wonder why entrepreneurs leave to go start startups abroad (just one reason of many, of course).

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Shouldn't the discussion be about how someone achieved the level of wealth rather than the actual level of wealth itself?

If there is nothing illegal or morally wrong about how, why it's an issue?

It's pretty reasonable to be concerned that the political professions are dominated by a certain class, usually the very wealthy. Politics has a representative role as well as a functional role; we want see people like us and not just people condescending to act for us (see: Labour's problem in the UK). It is a fairly legitimate criticism of Macron that he comes from the same old coterie that has dominated France for such a long while - what does he understand of just about scrimping by and knowing that your child's life will probably be worse than your own? Knowing that your community's economy is falling apart thanks to cheaper competition from abroad and increasing automation?

I'm not saying that the wealth is wrong, I'm saying that it fundamentally shapes who you are, your social interactions, the way you experience the world, the way you judge different policies, your moral outlook, your values, your history, and so on. In isolation, a single candidate who happens to be wealthy is no bad thing. When the political elite in a given country is overwhelmingly dominated by the wealthy, again and again and again, you have a problem - just as you do if it was always men and no women, or always the ethnic majority and never any ethnic minorities. It is a problem of lack of representation.

It is entirely reasonable to look at Macron and say: does he have any understanding of why the French working classes are turning to the FN, given he is so far removed from them? And the initial answer seems to be: no, not really. He's running on essentially the same policies as Hollande, which is how we reached this point in the first place.

 

[Alx]

Also the notion that everybody who works in a bank is corrupt or has bad intentions is quite strange.

Yes unfortunately it's one of the many stereotypes that plague the vision of politics by the population.
CEO/Banker ? bad
ENA/Sciences Po ? bad
Rich ? bad

Like Coluche said, "Si on écoutait ce qui se dit, les riches seraient les méchants, les pauvres, les gentils. Alors pourquoi tout le monde veut devenir méchant ? "

I'm not saying that the wealth is wrong, I'm saying that it fundamentally shapes who you are, your social interactions, the way you experience the world, the way you judge different policies, your moral outlook, your values, your history, and so on.

Think of all the great politicians and heads of state in history. Now notice how most of them were wealthy.
Being rich isn't incompatible with good politics. And if there seems to be some correlation between both, it's not only because of corruption (as many would be quick to conclude), but also because being successful in politics and being sucessful in business can rely on the same qualities.

It is entirely reasonable to look at Macron and say: does he have any understanding of why the French working classes are turning to the FN, given he is so far removed from them? And the initial answer seems to be: no, not really.

Why so ? Do you think the FN honchos understand why the French working classes are turning to them ? After all most of them are lawyers, not factory workers...

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Yes unfortunately it's one of the many stereotypes that plague the vision of politics by the population.
CEO/Banker ? bad
ENA/Sciences Po ? bad
Rich ? bad

Like Coluche said, "Si on écoutait ce qui se dit, les riches seraient les méchants, les pauvres, les gentils. Alors pourquoi tout le monde veut devenir méchant ? "

This is a straw man. You are not listening to the arguments of your opponents. People are not saying that wealth in and of itself is bad, just as people do not saying e.g. being a man is in and of itself bad. They are saying that politicians of wealth are very clearly overrepresented, as are male politicians, and that as a representative democracy (emphasis on representative) we have some reason to want to address the former, just as you would acknowledge we do the latter.

I did Oxford PPE, the Sciences Po of the UK. I'm still very content to say: people like me are grossly overrepresented in politics, and it is unhealthy for my country's democracy!

 

[Mistouze]

It's very common in French culture. People are suspicious of anyone with money. And you wonder why entrepreneurs leave to go start startups abroad (just one reason of many, of course).

It's this or a general disdain from rich people to the idea they should participate in the society that helped them make that money in accordance to their ressources.

 

[Cabaratier]

I'm not saying that the wealth is wrong, I'm saying that it fundamentally shapes who you are, your social interactions, the way you experience the world, the way you judge different policies, your moral outlook, your values, your history, and so on. In isolation, a single candidate who happens to be wealthy is no bad thing. When the political elite in a given country is overwhelmingly dominated by the wealthy, again and again and again, you have a problem - just as you do if it was always men and no women, or always the ethnic majority and never any ethnic minorities. It is a problem of lack of representation.

It is entirely reasonable to look at Macron and say: does he have any understanding of why the French working classes are turning to the FN, given he is so far removed from them? And the initial answer seems to be: no, not really. He's running on essentially the same policies as Hollande, which is how we reached this point in the first place.

I mean, I get your point about how it's bad for our representative democracies if the majority of the political class is Oxford PPE/Science Po/Harvard law, because people need to feel represented as much as they need their interests looked after, for a democracy to function properly. But I don't really agree with the link with wealth: look at Le Pen senior, he has basically build a rather wealthy political family, with his daughter and niece in high positions, and all of them drawing significant income from their political positions.

https://www.ft.com/content/92bcb812-a7f7-11e5-9700-2b669a5aeb83

So it's not actually about if a politician is rich, it's about if they feel rich.

 

[Alx]

They are saying that politicians of wealth are very clearly overrepresented, as are male politicians, and that as a representative democracy (emphasis on representative) we have some reason to want to address the former, just as you would acknowledge we do the latter.

Definitely not the same thing. Men and women are expected to be equally represented on the basis that they are equally skilled for the task. And like I said, there is a correlation between wealth and political skill (not a direct one obviously, you can be rich and bad politician, or poor and a good one), but wealth shouldn't be a factor in measuring representativity.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Definitely not the same thing. Men and women are expected to be equally represented on the basis that they are equally skilled for the task. And like I said, there is a correlation between wealth and political skill (not a direct one obviously, you can be rich and bad politician, or poor and a good one), but wealth shouldn't be a factor in measuring representativity.

Disagree completely and absolutely. Your wealth changes your experience of life at an absolutely fundamental level. Someone from a well-off background has absolutely no idea what it feels like to be poor - the insecurity on a day-to-day basis, the worries about your ability to pay for your family, the struggles of a job that doesn't remunerate you properly and treats you as utterly disposable, and so on.

It is very unlikely that a political class consisting solely of the wealthy could ever really represent working class concerns - just as it is unlikely a political class consisting solely of men could ever represent women's concerns. The failure to understand this is why we are in the situation we are now.

So much of liberal thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I mean, I get your point about how it's bad for our representative democracies if the majority of the political class is Oxford PPE/Science Po/Harvard law, because people need to feel represented as much as they need their interests looked after, for a democracy to function properly. But I don't really agree with the link with wealth: look at Le Pen senior, he has basically build a rather wealthy political family, with his daughter and niece in high positions, and all of them drawing significant income from their political positions.

https://www.ft.com/content/92bcb812-a7f7-11e5-9700-2b669a5aeb83

So it's not actually about if a politician is rich, it's about if they feel rich.

I agree, actually. Nigel Farage in the UK does the very same. He is actually quite wealthy, but he pretends to be an everyday cheeky chappie with his pint of beer and ordinary normal person approach - just like the Le Pens. But they do this because all of them are smart enough to know it is important to look like the people you want to represent - they try and hide their wealth, try and look like they're one of you. There's nobody to call them out on this, though, and say «vous n'êtes pas comme les gens», because all the liberals are themselves nothing like working people. So Farage and Le Pen get away with it unchallenged.

 

[Alx]

Disagree completely and absolutely. Your wealth changes your experience of life at an absolutely fundamental level. Someone from a well-off background has absolutely no idea what it feels like to be poor - the insecurity on a day-to-day basis, the worries about your ability to pay for your family, the struggles of a job that doesn't remunerate you properly and treats you as utterly disposable, and so on.

You may not know how it feels without having experienced it, but it doesn't mean you can't understand it or act for/against it.
By your logic one couldn't deal with economy if one hasn't owned a company, can't deal with old people without being old, can't deal with geopolitics without having witnessed war...

What we expect from politicians is precisely to understand all the ins and outs of our society, and nobody can claim he's lived all of it in a single life. That's why we need people who are smart and educated enough for the task, so they can quickly gather complex knowledge and make accurate decisions.
I do agree that more politicians need to get a better knowledge of what it means to be in the working class, living in the DOM/TOM, raising a child alone etc. But you don't need to have lived all of that to understand it. And wealth doesn't prevent you from learning about that either.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You may not know how it feels without having experienced it, but it doesn't mean you can't understand it or act for/against it.
By your logic one couldn't deal with economy if one hasn't owned a company, can't deal with old people without being old, can't deal with geopolitics without having witnessed war...

Of course, it is not an impermanent barrier - just as I have no doubt that there are many men who make extremely important advocates for the importance of being pro-choice. You can put yourself in someone else's shoes, although I would suggest that it isn't a test of 'skill' so much as 'empathy', which almost certainly does not correlate with wealth or education - wealthy and educated people have been running France for quite some time, but their lack of empathy has brought us to our current situation. However, I think you would be very surprised if it just so happened that 50% of all those advocating pro-choice (I mean in senior positions) were men, simply because as a woman in that situation, you don't even need to rely on empathy and many years careful understanding and listening, you understand that values and emotions involved simply by virtue of your life.

Which goes back to my prior point, where I said: it is certainly not impossible that someone of wealth could do this. However, we have very good reason to apply extra scrutiny when time after time after time, we *only* see wealthy candidates. In that respect, Macron needs to prove that he is not more of the same. At that, he has very much failed.

Two of your examples are not analogous. I am saying that you are much more likely to be able to adequately represent a particular group in society if you have some experience of that group. So the company/economies example does not match - an economy is not a group; there's no social group that somehow makes you understand the values of the economy, the economy has no values. Similarly, the war one does not (although to an extent, I think it is true that those who have suffered the horrors of war might be a little less keen to push the button than the cold utilitarian haste of the bureaucrat...).

Of the other example... yes, I think it is plausible that the very young do not understand what it is like to be old, and that the very old can sometimes forget what it was like to be young, and that it would be entirely unsurprising to see a young person's advocacy group headed by young people, and an older person's advocacy group headed by old people. I think you would probably think something was not quite right if a group claiming to represent and act in the best interests of 18-24 year olds was exclusively headed by the retired. You might start questioning why they seemed so incapable of representing themselves that they had to have their voice delivered by others, and not from their own mouths.

 

[Fisico]

In what universe would socialists want to get Mélenchon elected? The guy is dead set on destroying everything they have built in the last half-century at least, not too mention the socialist party itself.

People really live in weird bubbles, if you don't see how Mélenchon is an extremist candidate for a massive share of the french population (I want to say a majority but really I have no idea), how can you attack other people for being biased? (not that there aren't thought bubbles on the right or the center of course)

Well I think it's not too hard to swing back the "you live in a weird bubble" to you, it's a rather easy way to dismiss others opinion while not accounting why they're thinking this way in the first place.
What did socialist created in the last half century?
More paid vacation? Less working time? More social support? Occasional nationalizations? Increasing the minimum wage? Retirement at 60 years ? And all the societal progress like abolish the death penalty, pacs, loi Evin, same sex marriage and so on
Both Melenchon and Hamon have all of that, Macron does not and instead he's kind in a position where he wants to be right in the middle between Fillon and Hamon while being very evasive about everything, on the societal front he was supposed to be a progressist but since he backpedaled on the cannabis legalization matter I think it's fair to say that he isn't really anymore, he will just stay on the status quo in most topics if he was to be elected.

The two of them really are the embodiment of what "socialist" even mean on most of the important topics (see the graphs above)

Not to mention the one destroying the socialist party right now in a very frontal way is definitely Macron, En Marche is where all the "elephants" are running to currently and not a single one defected to Melenchon (though today we heard Royal praising him which is a bit of a surprise).

It doesn't mean Melenchon get a pass on everything (while not as controversial as some make it seem to be, his stances on international politics might be disturbing to say the least), it doesn't mean you necessary see the world with rose tinted glasses when you intend to vote for Melenchon, especially when we've all seen what happened in Greece with Tsipras, but like Hamon said we just have enough of voting "against" something or someone or voting by default, what's important is to send a message when voting and unlike the FN when you vote Melenchon there's a clear one behind and there's nothing destructive about anything he's proposing, a big shift that's for sure, one that might prove to be hard when confronting it to internationalization and market realities that's a given, but when there are billions being removed from the real economy and no one isn't doing anything about it don't complain when people are angry when we tell them

"Ok those billions are on you, you will work more for a longer time, and also it will be easier to fire you, also fuck the climate and ecology and btw we will destroy thousands of jobs in your city, including postal services, teachers, cultural and sports related jobs, healthcare will be more expansive and on you, also we will switch to private mostly so don't expect to have an hospital less than 30km from your city when you don't live in big cities or suburbs, also when you lose your job you will earn less and for a shorter time etc."

The promise being that this way we will be more competitive and they will be jobs for everyone so everything will be fine, except that's already what we've been doing for the past 15 years including the CICE (10B less tax for firms/year) under Hollande's presidency which was supposed to create 1M jobs and we all know how it ended up, and how the unemployment rate was 15 years ago and is today.

That's mostly Fillon's program, but that's what Macron want

Also since when is it so hip to gratuitously hate on Macron? Why is everyone starting every statement about him with "Not that I love Macron, but..."? The guy looks like a good candidate to me, I'm not afraid to say that I will be happy to vote for him. I don't understand this weird french obsession with being utterly disgusted with mainstream politicians. Nobody even knows why, but everyone feel they have to despise them.

"Hate" is a strong word, but for the educated you can check this video which summarizes a lot about Macron's campaign (the fact this tv program is unavailable on replay on LCI is a bit disturbing also), the ones talking about him clearly are not leftist or anything (though it's a shame that they all seem to agree with each other, they are mostly there to talk about the communication aspect of the campaign), they're juste commenting on a pure political point of view in a very straightforward way

On a personal point of view while I'd rather have Macron being elected than Fillon, I think that for a long term prospect it would be safer to have Fillon than Macron.
That's odd to say but Macron elected would set a very very very bad and dangerous precedent because Macron is 100% pure marketing and zero politic, the lack of program whatsoever two months before the election was the biggest offender, the backpedaling on some topics another, it's pretty clear that he's being pushed hard by a lot of lobbies including the medias and it's been the case for a long time now (it was pretty disturbing when one year ago you could just walk around and see an add for a magazine having "MACRON PRESIDENT" on cover, Fillon, Le Pen, Hamon or Melenchon never ever got that), when Hamon asked him multiple times for weeks and even on primetime on TV to be transparent about who's funding his campaign he dodged the question every single time, he even dared to say 100% of its funds were from private donators and the state didn't give him anything (something which is false since donations to political parties are exempted of tax to 66%) and no one seemed to care!
It even allowed Fillon to say that he was an "anti system candidate" which is a complete joke but somehow went through, there was also the case of some polls testing the option of a 2nd round Macron-Le Pen in late Summer/early Fall last year despite the former being very far from a contender to 2nd round back then, like 10 points far from it, when Melenchon had to wait to be less than 5 points far from it for a few weeks to be tested and Hamon never had this chance despite being regularly in the 5 points range in February, of course like every other poll whoever is the candidate against Le Pen that candidate would win, the point clearly was to increase the awareness of his potential win against very rule followed by polls before.

 

[Alx]

You can put yourself in someone else's shoes, although I would suggest that it isn't a test of 'skill' so much as 'empathy', which almost certainly does not correlate with wealth or education

Empathy is a skill, and putting oneself in someone else's shoes is a very effective strategy for success. It's such a cliché that there are uncountable quotes about it from "the Art of War" (which I haven't read, but are common guidelines used for war, business and politics alike).
Someone who doesn't understand what's in the mind of voters/clients/opponents has very low chances of succeeding.
You know, if some politicians don't seem to care about some parts of the population, I don't think it's because they aren't aware of their needs or their difficulties. It's more probably because they chose a different strategy than supporting them. Blame cynicism, sure, but not lack of understanding ; and just to be clear : empathy specifically means understanding someone else's feelings, not necessarily sharing them (that would be sympathy).

 

[Palette Swap]

when Hamon asked him multiple times for weeks and even on primetime on TV to be transparent about who's funding his campaign he dodged the question every single time, he even dared to say 100% of its funds were from private donators and the state didn't give him anything (something which is false since donations to political parties are exempted of tax to 66%) and no one seemed to care!

Most of your criticism sounds fair, or subjective, but this is honestly bullshit.
No one cared because this was a disappointing, cheap gotcha moment that was incredibly beneath Hamon.
Hamon asked Macron to deny he had donors who were pharma execs.
Macron pointed out that:
A. Private donors cannot be revealed by the candidates, for very obvious privacy reasons.
B. These donations are capped at 7,500€, and he has something like 15,000 donors.

Basically, that's a disingenuous question because Hamon knew perfectly he himself wouldn't be able to answer it if someone asked him.

Meanwhile, whatever you answer, you'll lose :

- if you answer yes, you're essentially saying "yes, I'm beholden to the dark, arcane powers of big pharma". Nevermind that if you can be bought off with 7,500€ you're really cheap.

- if you answer no, there's an incredibly high chance you're lying, because the probability none of your 15k donors is a pharma executive is infinitesimal. Hell, I have a coworker whose wife is a minor VP at a pharma company, they're Pro-Macron and probably gave some money to his campaign, so that's at least one. I'd be very surprised if this wasn't the case for every major party. I even know a banker who's a Mélenchon backer. Should we ask Mélenchon about his ties to banking through donors? Of course not.

- if you point out it's a not-so-relevant gotcha, you're dodging the question, and it's a sign you're hiding something.

At the end of the day, whatever you answer, you won't please people, hence the gotcha. And whatever you answer, the innuendo set there by the questioner will remain, which is why that was so disappointing from someone generally honest and civil like Hamon.

 

[G.O.O.]

One can be that not everyone think negotiation per enterprise will be in favor of the workers, especially with the kind of unemployement france have right know.

I see where the argument comes from but I think workers would benefit greatly from negociations between unions and companies on a smaller scale. It works in other countries, but here we expect the state to take the side of the workers and that almost never happens.

Of course we also have the problem of the unions not being enough representative, but then again as of now a lot of people don't know what they do...

on another subject, about the FN and young people => https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/l-edito-politique/l-edito-politique-13-avril-2017 (sorry, in French)

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Empathy is a skill, and putting oneself in someone else's shoes is a very effective strategy for success. It's such a cliché that there are uncountable quotes about it from "the Art of War" (which I haven't read, but are common guidelines used for war, business and politics alike).
Someone who doesn't understand what's in the mind of voters/clients/opponents has very low chances of succeeding.
You know, if some politicians don't seem to care about some parts of the population, I don't think it's because they aren't aware of their needs or their difficulties. It's more probably because they chose a different strategy than supporting them. Blame cynicism, sure, but not lack of understanding ; and just to be clear : empathy specifically means understanding someone else's feelings, not necessarily sharing them (that would be sympathy).

In my experience, the first is very much untrue. I do think a lot of the political and business elite are good at understanding the facts of situations and contexts, and naturally they can therefore understand what others would do in those situations contexts if those people are like themselves. Fortunately for them, they usually are - wealth and privilege are a relatively closed shop. I think they're often very poor at understanding what it is like to actually be someone else - not just in their situation, but to hold their values and emotions.

But more importantly: I am giving Macron the benefit of the doubt, because I would like to suppose the best of people. I am supposing he has sympathy, but not empathy. Let's suppose the above this isn't true, and that the problem is not that Macron has no empathy (as I say), but that he has no sympathy (as you say) - he is consciously choosing to continue a status quo that has left the mechanic and the factory-worker and the sales clerk and the care worker much worse off in this generation than they were the last.

Well, if that were the case, as you say, now I want to vote for him even less!

 

[Fisico]

Most of your criticism sounds fair, or subjective, but this is honestly bullshit.
No one cared because this was a disappointing, cheap gotcha moment that was incredibly beneath Hamon.
Hamon asked Macron to deny he had donors who were pharma execs.
Macron pointed out that:
A. Private donors cannot be revealed by the candidates, for very obvious privacy reasons.
B. These donations are capped at 7,500€, and he has something like 15,000 donors.

Basically, that's a disingenuous question because Hamon knew perfectly he himself wouldn't be able to answer it if someone asked him.

Meanwhile, whatever you answer, you'll lose :

- if you answer yes, you're essentially saying "yes, I'm beholden to the dark, arcane powers of big pharma". Nevermind that if you can be bought off with 7,500€ you're really cheap.

- if you answer no, there's an incredibly high chance you're lying, because the probability none of your 15k donors is a pharma executive is infinitesimal. Hell, I have a coworker whose wife is a minor VP at a pharma company, they're Pro-Macron and probably gave some money to his campaign, so that's at least one. I'd be very surprised if this wasn't the case for every major party. I even know a banker who's a Mélenchon backer. Should we ask Mélenchon about his ties to banking through donors? Of course not.

- if you point out it's a not-so-relevant gotcha, you're dodging the question, and it's a sign you're hiding something.

At the end of the day, whatever you answer, you won't please people, hence the gotcha. And whatever you answer, the innuendo set there by the questioner will remain, which is why that was so disappointing from someone generally honest and civil like Hamon.

Fair point, though if you wish to be transparent I'd say there would have been better ways to handle this, like for example he was proud to say the number of donators and the average sum each donator gave (the median value would have been better but I digress) but why not publish the sum each donator gave?

That was the weakest point of my argument alright, however I don't think it was wrong to bring it up especially after we've seen with Sarkozy in 2012 and if you have nothing to hide that should be an easy topic to dismiss.

 

[MistakenMobius]

So Melenchon wants to leave Eu and joined the bolivarienne alliance with Venezuela, Cuba and having observatory as Syria and Iran.

I mean seriously?

 

[Holden]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/852552041738141696

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/852552913578864640

Yep, looks like herding in French election polls. They shouldn't be this consistent with one another, especially in a hard-to-poll race.

This should raise a lot of red flags; herding is often a precursor to a big election night "surprise".

:/

 

[Ac30]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/852552041738141696

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/852552913578864640



:/

I mean, it could mean that LePen doesn't make the second round? :/

With the high-stakes surrounding elections, pollsters feel increased pressure to accurately capture who will win an election. Additionally with multiple pollsters releasing results on the same basic questions at about the same time, political pollsters want to avoid being seen as the one firm that got it wrong. To avoid raising questions regarding the accuracy of their results, some political pollsters adjust their findings to match or closely approximate the results of other polls—a practice known as ”herding."

”Herding" specifically refers to the possibility that pollsters use existing poll results to help adjust the presentation of their own poll results. "Herding" strategies can range from making statistical adjustments to ensure that the released results appear similar to existing polls to deciding whether or not to release the poll depending on how the results compare to existing polls.

http://www.aapor.org/Education-Resources/Election-Polling-Resources/Herding.aspx

Well this is bad.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I mean, it could mean that LePen doesn't make the second round? :/

Possibly, but in my experience of working for polling companies, herding tends to favour the leading candidate and centrist parties and disfavour the second place candidate and less centrist parties.

 

[Ac30]

Possibly, but in my experience of working for polling companies, herding tends to favour the leading candidate and centrist parties and disfavour the second place candidate and less centrist parties.

I figured as much, more a hope on my part.

 

[Alx]

In that case the "surprise" wouldn't be a surprise, but the expected Macron/Le Pen final.
Anyway the polls don't seem that similar to me, Ifop and Opinionway show visible différences, even in trends
http://dataviz.ifop.com:8080/HNS/HN...930&logonUser=USERWEB&logonPswcd=ZnJhbmNvaXNF
https://www.lesechos.fr/elections/p...vi-quotidien-de-la-presidentielle-2062937.php

 

[MistakenMobius]

Possibly, but in my experience of working for polling companies, herding tends to favour the leading candidate and centrist parties and disfavour the second place candidate and less centrist parties.

FN vote is systemically underreportes in poll

 

[Ac30]

FN vote is systemically underreportes in poll

Seems to be the case, so wouldn't shock me if she's closer to 30%, then again in 2007 they got less than predicted.

 

[Alx]

Yes I think the FN isn't different from other parties now as far as polls are concerned.
http://www.lemonde.fr/election-pres...est-il-sonde-aujourd-hui_5105528_4854003.html

The polls were biased when voters were asked by phone or in the flesh, but now it's all digital forms, plus there's much less shame in admitting supporting the FN.

 

[Holden]

Polls overestimated the far-right in netherlands election.

Polls have taken into account brexit and trump.

 

[Ac30]

I still think LePen being in the second round is all but guaranteed. Predicting the runner-up is the real challenge.

 

[Palette Swap]

Honestly, I don't think the issue right now is polling so much as it is a very palpable volatility and uncertainty.
There's still a lot of people who don't know if they'll vote or for whom. Polls do have an influence on that, mind you.

 

[KingSnake]

Polls overestimated the far-right in netherlands election.

Polls have taken into account brexit and trump.

The same happened in Austrian re-run of the presidential elections.

I think the pollsters have now overcompensated the right wing in some places due to Trump and Brexit results.

But I don't know if that applies in France too.

 

[Koren]

It feels like people blame the liberal parts out of principle, but in that case it also allows for cheaper transports, easier driving licensing, easier ruling in the workplace...

Not convinced by this one... On popular lines, the prices will drop. But I expect things getting worse on less popular ones (less lines, probably more expensive) and an overall worse service. I'm convinced that free market is bad for transportation.

It's not as if SNCF (french railway company) has a lot of cash, and they've already cut a lot of corners (lines are not well taken care of, they stopped removing trees close to the rails, which has a lot of bad consequenes, etc.)

It's a choice, but I prefer decent transportation for everyone to cheap transports for a handful of popular lines and abysmal service for everywhere else.

I'm deeply european, but I think EU is wrong on this.

The thing is, Macron isn't even especially wealthy, by regular standards. Even Mélenchon (on paper) has more wealth than him. Never mind Le Pen and Fillon, of course.

I have no problem with wealthy candidates. But he *is* wealthy. The fact that most others are (far) wealthier don't change the definition of "wealthy". When you earn in half a dozen years what many people would earn in four whole lives, you're wealthy (and even if half of it goes into tax). He's most probably in the top 0.1%.

Beside, even if you can discuss how banks and investors deal with money, its wealth is probably less shady than those of others (if half what is said about LePen wealth is true, for example... and no need to discuss Fillion). So again, I think it's fine.

Still, what I'm not fond is how the money seems to "disappear". For example, when he spend the biggest part of a million in a house owned by his wife family, that thus doesn't appear in his possessions, it seems like a trick (or he's really, really, really generous... not to say gullible).

FN vote is systemically underreportes in poll

That's not the case anymore... The correction coefficient used to be 2.5 in the past, it's basically 1.0 now. In fact, Ifop did a poll about the votes for a recent election, the result was showing MORE people saying they voted for Marine LePen that she actually got, so that's an overreport, and there's a couple of them now.

I still think LePen being in the second round is all but guaranteed. Predicting the runner-up is the real challenge.

I don't think anything is garanteed. I can see Melenchon for example stealing voices to FN at the last time, even if it's far from a given.

At this time, it's almost a random draw between the main 4 candidates, and even more than anytime in the past, I loathe the rules. We're basically choosing a president randomly. In the even of LePen-Melenchon 2nd turn, I can see myself voting for Melenchon without much hesitation, even if I agree basically on nothing in his propositions :/ You try to use the polls to avoid the 2nd turn you don't want at all costs, that can't be a decent solution.

The only thing that's kinda easy to me is the legislative that follows. Since I basically like noone, I'll definitively vote against the elected president then. A right government with a left president or a left government with a right presidend will force them to discuss a bit and be reasonable. That won't be good because we really need some reforms, but still...

 

[Ac30]

The only thing that's kinda easy to me is the legislative that follows. Since I basically like noone, I'll definitively vote against the elected president then. A right government with a left president or a left government with a right presidend will force them to discuss a bit and be reasonable. That won't be good because we really need some reforms, but still...

I kinda wish more countries would abolish presidencies altogether. We don't have them in Belgium and it stops fringe parties from wielding a ton of power.

 

[Dascu]

The only thing that's kinda easy to me is the legislative that follows. Since I basically like noone, I'll definitively vote against the elected president then. A right government with a left president or a left government with a right presidend will force them to discuss a bit and be reasonable. That won't be good because we really need some reforms, but still...

I feel like this leads exactly to the kind of governmental breakdowns that cause people to lose faith in the 'establishment'.

 

[sbkodama]

but then again as of now a lot of people don't know what they do...

Let me laugh, you think you know better than others ? some might say the same about you.

 

[G.O.O.]

Let me laugh, you think you know better than others ? some might say the same about you.

*facepalm*

they = the unions

 

[mo60]

Polls overestimated the far-right in netherlands election.

Polls have taken into account brexit and trump.

Yeah. I don't think le pen will overperform the polls at this point. She may underperform them. Macron I think has an equal chance of slightly underperforming or slightly overperforming the polls. Fillon will probably end up performing close to where he is polling right now while I think Melenchon will probably underperform the polls at bit.

 

[Sinsem]

It feels like people blame the liberal parts out of principle, but in that case it also allows for cheaper transports, easier driving licensing, easier ruling in the workplace...

Nope.
It's easy to predict what will happen with the "Cars Macron" for exemple (it's already happening btw).
First few years, competitors drive the prices down to kill each others.
Survivors are the one with the biggest wallet.
Then, prices go up, less popular lines disappear and you find yourself with a transportation network that cover only a small part of the territory, and higher prices than if it was still public transportation.
Hurray for the liberals!
Public services are important because they cover everyone, liberalism is killing them slowly.
But hey, we need that because Europe, even when we said no to that in 2005 and the will of the people was not respected.

Also regarding other aspects of the "Loi Macron", I wouldn't call it "easier rulling in the workplace" I would call it "fuck the employees". I should know, I had to fire someone for economic reasons recently, let me just say that you were already able to fire someone for pretty bullshit reasons before, now it's even worse.
Don't get me started with things like the CICE (lol, one million jobs) or the "Allégement Fillon" which is just a big fuck you to anyone who aspire to make more than the minimal wage.
Everytime something is done, it's done for the employers, never for the employees. And then you don't understand why people are angry with the governement ant turn to radicals, and are just craving for change.

 

[Ac30]

Yeah. I don't think le pen will overperform the polls at this point. She may underperform them. Macron I think has an equal chance of slightly underperforming or slightly overperforming the polls. Fillon will probably end up performing close to where he is polling right now while I think Melenchon will probably underperform the polls at bit.

Why do you think Melenchon would underperform? He seems to have the hype at the moment, and it's 10 days until election night.

 

[mo60]

Why do you think Melenchon would underperform? He seems to have the hype at the moment, and it's 10 days until election night.

He underperformed before in the 2012 presidential election plus the percentage of people that will definitely vote for him on April 23rd is not much better then Macron.There's a chance in the last minute people vote for Fillon or Macron to block Melenchon from moving on to the second round.