Bonjour, I would like to speak to the 1% of 1st round Macron voters switching to Le Pen in the 2nd round.
Forget about those I want to speak to the 4 percent of Zemmour voters who switched to Macron
Forget that, what about the 1% of Le Pen voters who are now voting Macron. What were they doing? Trying to weaken Macron to replace him in the second round, yet now settling for him over the woman generally viewed as the 2nd place contester throughout most of the election that they tried voting for?
What if they were right-wingers who believed Mélenchon could win a Le Pen-Mélenchon runoff? Thus they voted for Macron whom they thought could also beat Mélenchon if he made it to the second round.
Now that there is no chance of a Mélenchon presidency, they can safely vote for the more right-wing candidate.
le pen's policies are strangely left leaning (if you ignore the no immigrants part, which a lot of french left do)
Mostly good. Macron beat Le Pen in the first round, and is getting 2:1 votes from the 3rd place candidate.
Assuming these numbers play our, that's an extra 4 million for Macron and only about 3.5 million for Le Pen, which would mean he'd increase his lead in absolute terms.
I counted, this would be 14.31M votes for Macron, 12.42M votes for Le Pen. So a 53.5% victory.
But this ignores voters who voted for a candidate with less than 3% of votes. As well as people who did not vote for the 1st round but will vote for the 2nd round.
I'm plugging (no other source than my intuition):
Roussel, Poutou, Arthaud: 30% Macron, 45% abstention 25% Le Pen (people who want to change the system, a bit more extreme than Mélenchon).
Lassalle: 10% Macron, 30% abstention, 60% Le Pen (rurals)
Dupont-aignan: 10% Macron, 10% abstention, 80% Le Pen (mostly aligned with Le Pen, but he's a bit more moderate, so more vote for Macron than for Zemmour electors)
Hidalgo: 60% Macron, 30% abstention, 10% Le Pen
And I'll say 1M 2nd round voters who didn't vote for the 1st round (couldn't find an estimate for 2017). I think they are more likely to be Macron voters, since his presence in the 2nd round was much more certain. I'll give 55% of those to Macron and 45% to Le Pen.
That would give 15.59M votes for Macron, 14.49M votes for Le Pen (Macron victory by 51.8%).
Well, this will be 2 stressful weeks!
I really cant understand how someone could give their vote to Jadot and then to le Pen. Melechon is thanks to thle left right pro putin alliance still understandable.
Remember how many Republicans preferred Bernie or Obama to Hillary even though they're further left?
Sometimes voters get so wrapped up in hating an opponent that they lose the script.
Melechon is thanks to thle left right pro putin alliance still understandable.
maybe the fact that Jadot supporters are putting up the same numbers suggest that it is not, in fact, thanks to that
Hope. Macron should just focus on getting people jobs and avoid all talk of raising the retirement age for the next 2 weeks.
Why do a lot of people what Macron to lie about his plans for the retirement age? It's shit like that that fuels the populist candidates.
Hope. Macron should just focus on getting people jobs and avoid
all talk ofraising the retirement agefor the next 2 weeks.
Pension reform is simply essential for France's economic future, and he's the only one who can make it happen.
I'm sorry, who the hell votes Macron and then Le Penn? I understan oting tactically, but anyone should understand by now that Macron has already beaten La Penn once, and she'd have an easier time facing literally anyone else? Wtf?
It's probably the Lizardman's constant. In all polls, some people answer some absurd stuff.
Especially when all your first vote could do is hurt LePen if you don't vote for her, considering Melonchon lmao. I assume it's to counter statistical anomalies.
I expected better from Jadot voters. Then again, I somehow expected worse from Melenchon voters.
Don't jinx it. Last time I jinxed an election, we ended up with Trump.
Mélenchon: "Guys, if you voted for me, please don't vote for Le Pen".
20% of Mélenchon supporters: "quoi?"
Mélenchon**
quoi ?*** (I'm guessing you meant 'what?' and not 'which?' cause alone it doesn't make sense)
It's not supposed to be "undecided", it's "abstention" (and blank vote / null vote).
Although, since there is no "undecided" option, undecided voters would probably choose "abstention" in that poll.
The French presidential election is like playing Russian roulette, but instead of only one chamber with a bullet, every chamber but one is filled.
Further proof that a substantial percentage of far-leftists are indistinguishable from fascists
How? This just shows that the (far)left, and many other parties, can attrackt voters who could also vote for the far right. That's not a bad thing, the less people actually vote for the far right the better.
Can someone ELI5 about this whole election process? I'm heckin' confused. Lack of legends do complicate things!
Heya, I'm a touch confused by what I'm seeing with this graphic. Anyone mind giving me some of that sweet, sweet translation?
In order, intent to vote for Marcon (yellow), abstain (grey), le pen (blue).
Though there's no "not sure" and I seriously doubt this many people who actually voted in the first round would abstain in the second, so I imagine Abstain is mostly "not sure".
I'll never not be disgusted by this large chunk of people who think "well the leftist didn't win, better vote for the fascist, not this guy who agrees 95% with me."
Published October 14, 1854.
A YEAR ago we ventured to hint that it might be worthwhile for Europe to go to war with Russia for the sake of information — in order to ascertain that is whether her strength was that of the bully or the giant — whether she was really entitled to dictate and domineer as she habitually did — whether, in a word, she was mighty in virtue of her own inherent force, or only in virtue of the ignorant timidity of her foes and rivals. We pointed out several notable sources of weakness in her institutions; we directed attention to the fact that nearly all her great acquisitions had been secured not by fighting but by bullying and intriguing; that diplomacy and not war had always been her favourite weapon; that she kept up such an enormous army on paper that all secondary States had arrived at the conclusion that resistance to her will was hopeless, but that in general she bad carefully abstained from coming into actual armed collision with any first rate Power. We expressed an opinion, too, that there was no reason whatever to suppose that her armies were as effective now as in 1815, when they were supported by the subsidies of England and trained and disciplined by wars with France; and we ventured to surmise that when they came into actual conflict with competent forces and skillful commanders they would exhibit a degree of feebleness and failure that would cause general amazement. Our suspicions have now been more than realized. […]
This unexpected weakness of Russia in military matters arises from four concurring causes, of which three are inherent in her system, and, if not absolutely incurable, are at least little likely to be cured.
In the first place, the nature of the country and the want of roads. Her resources may be vast but they are scattered and remote. Her forces may be immense, but they are necessarily in great measure distant from the scene of action. […]
Secondly. The Russian armies are often armies on paper only. Not only are their numbers far fewer than are stated in returns and paid for out of the official purse, but they are notoriously ill-provided with everything necessary to the action of a soldier. The colonels of regiments and officers commissariat have a direct interest in having as large a number on the books and as small a number in the field as possible — inasmuch as they pocket the pay and rations of the between these figures. They have an interest also in the men being as inadequately fed and clothed as possible — inasmuch they pocket the difference between the sum allowed and the sum expended on the soldiers’ rations and accoutrements. The Emperor provides (or believes he does) for the food, clothing, lodging, arms and ammunition of 5 or 600,000 men; but every one of these who is or can be made non-existent is worth two or three hundred roubles to some dishonest official or officer; every pair of shoes or great coat intercepted from the wretched soldier is a bottle of champagne for the ensign or the major; every ammunition waggon which is paid for by Government, but not provided, is a handsome addition to the salary of the captain or the contractor. Robbery and peculation of this sort is universal, in every rank, in every district, in every branch. It runs through every department in the Empire; and its operation upon the efficiency of the military service may be easily imagined and cannot be easily exaggerated.
This horrible and fatal system originates in two sources — both, we fear, nearly hopeless, and certainly inherent in Russian autocracy;— the rooted dishonesty of the national character. and the incurable inadequacy of despotic power. Cheating, bribery, peculation pervade the whole tribe of officials, and are, in fact, the key-note and characteristic of the entire administration. There seems to be no conscience, and not much concealment, about it. The officers are ill paid, and of course pay themselves. Regard for truth or integrity has no part in the Russian character. We have heard those who know them well say that there are only three honest men in the Empire:— Woronzow is one, Nesselrode another — and men differ about the name of the third. We have heard Statesmen, who strongly incline towards a Muscovite alliance, say that the Russians are liars above all things: it is their spécialité. Then the power of the Autocrat, absolute as it is and vigorously as it is exercised, is utterly insufficient to meet the evil. What can a despot do who has no instruments that can be trusted? There is no middle class who pay the taxes and insist upon knowing how they are expended. There is no free Press, with its penetrating and omniscient vigilance, to compel honesty and drag offenders to light and retribution. There is only one eye over all: and that eye can of course see only a small corner of this vast Empire. What the Emperor looks at, or can visit, is well done: everything else is neglected or abused. It is the common and inevitable story wherever you have centralisation and barbarism combined.
Thirdly. The common soldiers, brave and hardy as they are, devoted to their Czar, and careless of privation, have no love for their profession, and no interest in the object of the war. If we except the household regiments, who are near the person of the Emperor, the Russian private has no zeal for glory, no taste for fighting, no pleasure in bold and exciting enterprises. He is serf, seized by the conscription, and condemned to hopeless slavery for life. He is torn from his family and his land, drilled by the knout, neglected by his officers, fed on black bread, where fed at all, always without comforts, often without shoes. How can such troops be expected to make head,— we do not say against French enthusiasm, we do not say against British resolution, we do not say against fanatical and hardy mountaineers, like Schamyl and his warriors, — but even against courageous well fed Turks, fighting for their country and their faith, and officered by competent commanders? We need not wonder to read that at Oltenitza and Silistria the Russians had to be on to the assault with menaces and blows; that general had to sacrifice their lives in an unprecedented manner in order to encourage the soldiers to make head against the foe; and that the prisoners of war begged as a mercy to be permitted to enlist in the army that had captured them rather than return to misery by being exchanged.
Lastly. There is another source of weakness in the Russian Empire. That vast State is in a great measure composed of spoils which she has torn from surrounding nations. She is a patchwork of filched and unamalgamated materials. Her frontier provinces are filled with injured, discontented, hostile populations, whom, being unable to reconcile to her rule, she has endeavoured to enfeeble and to crush; and many of whom wait, with more or less of patience and desire, the blessed day of emancipation and revenge. … Since the great Roman Empire probably, no State ever enfolded so many bitter enmities within its embrace, or was girt with such a circle of domestic foes.
Now these three last sources of Russian weakness are perennial. They belong to her as a despotism as a centralised administration, as an Empire formed by conquest and unconsolidated and unsecured by conciliation. Until, therefore, her whole system changed; till an honest middle class has been created; till her Government be liberalised and de-centralised; till a free Press be permitted and encouraged to unveil and denounce abuses; and till the rights and feelings of annexed territories be habitually respected, we do not think that Russia need henceforth be considered as formidable for aggression. She has been unmasked; it will be the fault of Europe if it dreads her, or submits to be bullied by her, any longer.
Full article: https://books.google.com/books?id=TDVRAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
advisors to Governor Polis
online now