Update-1 :: Final tally – 100%
Macron 23.75%
Le Pen 21,53%
Fillon 19.91%
Mélanchon 19.64%
○ Le compte officiel du Ministère de l’Intérieur@Place_Beauvau
Estimate of Actual Votes, Not an Exit Poll at 20:00hrs
Macron 23.7%
Le Pen 21,7%
Fillon 19.5%
Mélanchon 19.5%How does France’s system of vote estimates work?
Unlike many countries which operate exit polls asking people how they voted, the initial vote estimate in French elections – in use and steadily perfected since 1965 – is based on an actual vote count.
Pollsters select about 200 polling stations around the country, in rural areas, small towns and urban agglomerations, carefully chosen to be as representative as possible of the country as a whole.
The numbers are then run through a sophisticated computer program that adjusts them for past results and assorted variables, and produces a national vote estimate.
○ A watershed moment in French political history, “le 21 avril” in 2002
More below the fold …
My latest post this morning …
France Turning On Brexit and Trump
Before the Dutch election, the media expected a similar populist move as was seen in the UK referendum and the weirdest US presidential election ever. It did NOT happen! The populist anti-immigration party PVV of Geert Wilders disappointed.
I expect a similar counter-move in the France election 2017. The FN of Marine Le Pen has peaked too early and she may hope to beat Fillon for the second spot for the run-off election. With the excentrics of Donald Trump in the first 100 days, the disappointments of high expectations and in the UK a conservative PM May who chooses party politics over the interest of a divided nation after the Brexit 2016 vote.
○ ‘We are all Brenda’ : Hilarious video of shocked woman reacting to General Election news sparks empathy
○ EU hopes snap election will boost May’s mandate | Politico |
○ Theresa May’s election ‘power grab’ slammed by EU’s Guy Verhofstadt | The Guardian |
Both Trump and May, who seem to get along well together, will have a negative effect for the undecided voters today in France. I expect both Macron and Fillon to get a little bump relative to the most recent polls of April 20-21.
Earlier diaries concerning the French and their presiential Election2017 …
○ Trump: ‘Big Effect’ On French Election … No Interference!
○ French Election: Crunch Time – Part 2 by Marie3
○ Opinion polling and the French Elections by Frank Schnittger
We will see. If it holds score one for the French Pollsters.
According to French TV, there is another estimate that has the two tied at 23.
French TV is calling Marcon Hollande’s dauphin. Marcon’s program is fuzzy, and ironically likely represents little change from a very unpopular Hollande.
I use the offical source!
○ Ministère de l’Intérieur@Place_Beauvau warned there are bogus numbers out in the media.
U.S. president Donald Trump put his weight behind Marine Le Pen to force a Frexit … he failed miserably!
Russia’s president Putin saw it fit to meet with Le Pen in the Kremlin … his interference had no content and was simply an annoyance to the French.
President Obama had a telephone conversation last week with Emmanuel Macron. Clearly had sympathy for how the grassroots campaign was run … Barack Obama got a bit of revenge. Macron runs on a pro-EU platform and has major support from French expats in London and New York.
Canadean president Trudeau too belongs in this new Democratic alliance of realists … with Obama and France’s next president Macron. I suppose, Angela Merkel can be counted in, there is no love lost with the Donald, Germany and the Chancellor.
BTW, my comment below is not to endorse Frexit, but kickback within the EU. I also had hoped that France would pave the way with new Leftist solutions to modern problems. Instead they (and we) are stuck with Reaganomics. True, we had a black Reagan and almost Meagan in a pantsuit. Now we have Meagan with half of Reagan’s brain and none of his political skill.
Damn spellcheck! Reagan not Meagan.
Btw from the graph, the trust in the presidency took a hit during Watergate and Nixon’s demise in 1973.
From the stats, there was a jump in disapprove percentage which has never recovered. The beginning
of political stalemate in U.S. Congress and partisanship?
○ Présidentielle : Emmanuel Macron en tête, suivi de Marine Le Pen
Too bad. Now France is stuck with another N years under the heel of German Bankers. I was hoping for Melenchon.
Neoliberalism lives!
Without winning support in the elections down the road, Melanchon couldn’t have governed anyway. Adding more to that you have the same problem Syriza had: Europe and Germany. Until Germany’s political interests change domestically, or until Spain, Italy, and France all act as a united left bloc, nothing really matters. Well except stopping the fascist Le Pen. That’s always important independent of anything else. Of course, same was true here with regard to Trump.
Spent an hour watching French TV.
No one really knows what Macron is for. Several expressed amazement that a minister in Hollande’s government, which is incredibly unpopular, will become President.
There is a vague sense Macron is pro-business, but no one is sure.
One interesting comparison: the right in France repudiated Le Pen quickly. The right in the US never repudiated Trump en masse.
Political elections are less policy than anyone cares or wants to admit — not in anyone’s ideological self interest to say it. I’m not surprised. He’s young and “independent”, being independent I think was a big selling point of Bernie’s. But it won’t last until new institutions are built. Keep the fascists out and figure out where the political fulcrum is. One would think Trump’s election would have changed Schlauble’s calculus. But nope, he’s willing to destroy the Union for the banks. Ideology or corruption, doesn’t matter if Le Pen eventually wins.
Maybe Macron isn’t Hillary, but he’s at least Rahm. Doesn’t that background fit?
Please elaborate on your analogy, which I don’t follow at all.
What? Number one, Hillary is way better than Rahm. Number two, I don’t really even know Macron’s ideology, but it doesn’t matter because power will be invested in the elected body in the next elections. He will be restrained by the parliament, whoever holds power there. For president it only matters that Le Pen lose. Anyway, Macron is way better than Fillon, who just months ago looked like the candidate lefties would need to swallow to keep the fascist out.
There is a theme emerging: I saw it more than a few times:
Macron ’17 = Le Pen ’22
The point is Macron is unlikely to address the very things that are driving populist forces.
Even Krugman noted it.
Europe is being run by the banks and the Germans. Macron campaigned with a Euro flag. But the irony is in the only vote France had on the Euro France voted against it.
We need to find a way to marry a defense of diversity and liberal institutions with a plausible program to address income inequality.
It didn’t win in the US, and it is not going to win in the UK. Macron to the people I was watching was about kicking the can down the road.
No one that I saw thought he had an answer.
Mostly good points. Status quo, which Macron represents, isn’t going to cut it for long with most French voters. Nor is another dose of austerity, whether from the Macron govt or Brussels.
And what if — as is most likely to happen — terrorist incidents from the Islamist quarter not only continue in France but increase in number/severity? He will be under tremendous pressure not only to ratchet up anti-terror policies, but also to more aggressively address immigrant issues. I don’t think, in the long run, that soft appeals to tolerance are going to be convincing with a public increasingly worried about public safety.
Possibly, but I tend to believe Le Pen’s strength is always exaggerated, especially in western media. If she can reach 40% in the May vote, I might consider her 2022 prospects more seriously.
But why is Hollande unpopular?
I think we ought to acknowledge our limits in understanding French political culture, even those of us with some ability with the French language, and quit projecting American categories onto the French situation.
We’ve just witnessed a presidential election in which neither of the long-established center-left and center-right parties managed to advance its candidate to the runoff. It’s weird to say the least. But it may not necessarily tell us anything about what’s likely to happen when a new National Assembly is elected in mid-June. I’ve failed to find any recent opinion polls.
Nah — former Rothschild banker could possibly be pro-business. (Macron earned a few million during his relatively short banking career.)
This is his first elected office. Neophytes won in the US and France.
It seems to me that Macron is the one candidate everybody should know what he’s for (well, other than Le Pen). He was the Economy minister until he stepped down to run for president, so it sounds like he is a continuation of “business friendly” policies to make labor rules closer to those in the rest of Europe. And strongly pro-Euro along with any resulting austerity policies.
Ironically, these are the policies that people hated Hollande so much that he didn’t run.
Dead right.
My sense of it is that a number of dispirited left voters, PS-inclined or in the middle of the spectrum, were willing to put Macron’s past activities as Economy minister to the side as they got all worked up over the fact that he was a young, handsome, dynamic fresh face running under the banner of a new party who thereby offered the possibility of making a new start on getting problems solved.
A personality-driven candidacy, echoes of Obama 08, who offered a lot of appealing, positive rhetoric which overshadowed specific proposals or promises. Plenty of people are going to be attracted to handsome, young, charismatic and positive. As with several of my liberal pro-Macron American friends here. Much more talk of and excitement about Macron the person than his less-exciting status quo policies, which do make these backers somewhat nervous.
Le Pen was much more of a hard, clear, negative, anti-status quo policy, promises candidate, with some charisma thrown in. She will be hammered hard in the next two weeks by the French msm — Macron’s campaign will only need to do light lifting. She has a 40% ceiling tops in the finale.
Mélenchon was a more even mix of policy and personality who started well behind and had too much ground to make up. He also suffered from Hamon staying in the race — despite abysmal poll numbers — and failing to throw his support to the more lefty change candidate.
N=5 is the president’s term.
Sorry for not participating in your thread, but I’m old-fashioned when it comes to watching election returns. I like to see the votes roll in. The actual votes, but had to settle for reported percentages as France’s election official reported them.
Appears that only a few more are yet to be reported (if 107 departments = the total votes cast). So far only slightly more depressing than my own depressing forecast. Where I had it was:
Macron 23.4%
Le Pen 21.9%
Fillon 21
Melenchon 20.2
Hamon 7.3
DLR 4
Patou 1.5
LO 0.6
Didn’t bother to include the other quirky centrist or the frexit guy. Ends up just over two percent those took took from Fillon and Le Pen.
who would you have voted for?
You mean you don’t know who one you’ve labeled a Putin-Russia-troll would vote for?
For the benefit of anyone with distorted perceptions of me, racism or playing the race card is a deal-breaker for me. So, even if she weren’t such an economic/finance lightweight, Le Pen wouldn’t have been an option. (Guess by Albright’s rule — a special place in hell awaits me.)
I’ve never supported or voted for a Republican in my life — so, Fillon wouldn’t have been a consideration. (In the fine tradition of Chirac, Juppé, and Sarkozy, Fillon is also corrupt — must be a requirement for LR’s party leaders.)
Macron — ha ha. I don’t vote for political neophytes for president. Or bankers. Reminds me of Geithner and Goolsbee.
Would have gone with whichever one between Hamon and Melenchon that had a chance to get in the top two. Hamon is a decent enough person and has a long political resume. Policy wise better than Hollande but not by as much better as a socialist should be. Melenchon split from PS in ’08 because he’s a socialist and correctly analyzed the EU proposals.
I didn’t want to assume, but I guessed Melenchon.
Except my choice would have been well considered and not kneejerk.
Can’t compare European parties or election results with the US democratic institutions or its elections. I suppose one exception would come close, the United Kingdom with all its very own complexities.
You can see movements in the electorate across the western nations and see similarities, not always in the same timeline.
The establishment [financial institutions and representations] has gotten one hit after another, from the UK with Brexit, to the election of apprentice Trump to the election in France where a unicum took place, not seen before in the Fifth Republic. If Fillon would have gotten a fraction more and passed the 20% mark, this would also have set a record: a candidate with 20% failing to reach the 2nd round.
In the Dutch election one saw the establishment Labour party PvdA slumped to 9%, an all time low. It was by-passed by a number of left oriented socialist parties the SP and the Green Party of newcomer Klaver. The youth vote plays a major role on the face of politics today. Voters don’t spend time on studying party platforms or policy. As seabe rightly concluded:
“Political elections are less policy than anyone cares or wants to admit — not in anyone’s ideological self interest to say it.
I’m not surprised. He’s young and “independent”, being independent I think was a big selling point of Bernie’s.”
I see Emmanuel Macron a mix of an inexperienced politician as senator Barack Obama was in 2008 with traits of Bernie Sanders of 2016.
Candidate Fillon was a perfect example of the 2016 candidacy of HRC in the US. Fillon considered personal interest more important than his representation of his party to win an election up for grabs. Just unbelievable! A whiff of corruption the voters had to hold their noses to check his box on the ballot paper. So in the France election it was Macron by default.
Compared to European politics and party policy, the US Democrats are conservative and to the right. The Fillon conservatives would be split between Trump and HRC with Trump adding all of the Le Pen electorate.
The socialist voters in France are still engaged in this year’s election: see Mélenchon [19.64%] and Hamon [6.35%]. Added together the socialists have gathered 26%!!
That’s just weird. Obama had been elected three times to the IL state house and once to the US Senate by the time he was elected president. He gave the keynote address at the 2004 DNC convention — two years before he began his presidential run. When did Macron first appear before a nationwide audience as a politician and candidate? (The first debate a month ago?)
Like Sanders? Please articulate in what ways.
Macron pitched “reforming” all those “outdated” government regulations and operations. Just as Thatcher, Bliar, Reagan, and Clinton did. And as the same moneyed interests backed Macron, doesn’t take a genius to figure out that “reform” means kill off the remaining dregs of socialism that decreased income/wealth inequality in the mid-twentieth century. But “modernization” sounds so hip. Otherwise, Macron is a a banker republican that just doesn’t share their conservative racist, sexist, and espoused personal morality positions.
MoDem/centrists plus x% of PS from the conservative wing = 23.86%. But centrists are flexible in that they don’t care if that x% comes from the liberal wing of the conservatives or conservative wing of the liberals. The formulation looks easy, but it isn’t. Requires a degree of collapse in at least one of the two major parties.
If you want to liken US candidates to the election in France, the closest one would be Hamon = Sanders. Superficial stuff, age, and personal histories get in the way of recognizing that Clinton = Macron. He was more effective in dressing up and selling a second Hollande term than HRC was in selling a third Clinton term. (That she ended up having to sell a third Obama term wasn’t by choice but necessity; she didn’t have the luxury of a presidential incumbent with a 4% approval rating that she could publicly distance herself from.) There was no Fillon or Melenchon in the US general election. Trump = Le Pem in only the broadest and most superficial ways.
Melenchon was also talking up French withdrawal from the EU.
I watched French TV for a while. The estimate was released, and the candidates started speeches. And I saw little mention of the actual vote. In what I was watching there was no vote scroll at the bottom of the screen.
The difference between le Pen and Fillon was less than a point: but Fillon conceded less than an hour after the polls close.
This was the Huff Pollster average:
Macron23.8%
Le Pen22.2%
Fillon19.8%
Mélenchon19.4%
Hamon7.7%
Other8.5%
French pollsters would appear to be better than US pollsters.
I would have prefered to vote for Hamon, but I guess I would have voted for Melenchon (though he is well to my left)
Guardian election results — live updates as they were reported.
A large number of pollsters and they all ran polls continuously. Until we know the turnout and the percentage of null votes, we won’t know if getting extremely close to the actual vote tally is because turnout was as low as what they reported in their polls or if the undecideds broke the same way as those that stated their choice to the pollsters.
Not sure why the French (UK and US) media gets so freaked out about any attractive leftish candidate or Le Pen. French voters have been reliably leaning right since ’95. And the Petain/monarchist/neo-nazi vote hasn’t varied by that much either.
One takeaway is that the candidate with the highest approval rating (68%) came in fourth (unless the last departement to report alters that). So, as a third party candidate, Sanders wouldn’t have had a chance.
Historical Null and Abstain percentages and (total)
By grey, I assume you mean the brown that my screen is rendering. I do see red, yellow and blue (sort of turquoise). Interesting that Le Pen’s strength is in the areas closest to Germany and Italy. I wonder if there are historical reasons for that.
Everything has some historical reason. The 2012 election result map doesn’t confirm what you snidely suggested. Although it is odd that there are crossover votes between LR and FN. Might amuse Petain but maybe not De Gaulle so much.
“snidely”? I was just talking about geography. And by historical I mean pre-20th Century. I would not expect German WWII occupation to have any political influence, other than negative, today.
The regions near Italy were Roman strongholds all the way until the final collapse. Until recently, even the language diverged from formal French (like Southern Italy diverging from the “official” Italian language).
The region near Germany is associated with ancient Frankia, a name derived (or vice versa) from the German word for “free”. The inhabitants, mostly immigrants from “wild” Germany in the later Roman period were proud to be free of the Empire. They were free Germans as opposed to the tribes that accepted Roman governance for the right to settle within the Empire.
I am not well read on French history from 500 AD to modern times. I do know of Charlemagne (from High School!) , but that’s about it until the French Revolution.
The map looks much the same as far as breaking down into regions. Similar maps could be drawn for the USA. The Solid South was once solid (D), now solid (R). IMHO for the same reason, namely whatever the North is for, the South is against. Again, historical reasons and a historical divide.
○ Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin is a mining and industrial cultural landscape
○ L’état de santé de la population en France – 2015 [pdf]
I gather Le Pen did well in poorer regions? That makes sense, although Melenchon should have done well there too.
FN/Le Pen vote percentage in presidential elections
1988 – 14.39%
1995 – 15%
2002- 16.86%
2007 – 10.44%
2012 – 17.19%
2017 – 21.43%
That’s a larger and stronger base than any party other than republican (and PS before 2017). IOW 15% of the French electorate longs for the restoration a king Louis or Vichy government.
Pretty stable. She is up 4 points from 2017 but it still feels like she is a long way from power.
I can’t get the tweet to show up, but this was interesting”
Not surprising to me based on the people I talked to who could vote for either Trump or Sanders.
Can’t project the second round from the first round — different dynamics. In 2002 Le Pen only added a couple of points in the final. Marine will pick up more votes from the right side of the aisle then her daddy did, but that’s less about her and the times than the fact that daddy went up against Chirac and there’s not much political territory in between those two.
Are you suggesting that Macron shouldn’t have to work for votes in the second round? That being the “lesser evil” from the perspective of liberals is enough?
Does Macron need (know he doesn’t want) votes from lefties? For every leftie he loses, he can pick up two republicans. Oh, wait that was HRC/Schumer in PA. The left in France has in the past turned out to put a liberal over the top. Liberals have never returned the favor.
Those that stuck with Hamon are liberal wimps; they’ll go with Macron in the final just as they did by proxy in the first round. (Not as honest as half of PS voters that jumped to Macron.)
While I view voting for Le Pen as irresponsible, I can sort of see the calculation by lefties this time. But they would be wise to rethink this. The current estimate for Fillon voters is 43% to Macron, 31% to Le Pen, and 26% DK/abstain. Are SarkozyBros supposed to forget about 2012? Fat chance.
“IOW 15% of the French electorate longs for the restoration a king Louis or Vichy government. “
Now you sound like Booman on Trump voters.
I read somewhere recently that France has 10% unemployment. Might that not have an effect? That’s 10% that the neolibs admit to.
What part of an established political party with a base of 15% of the electorate don’t you get? (Not just one time but every time for three decades — with the reduction to 10% in 2007 to keep a conservative in office.) Outside of the GOP and DP, we don’t have anything like that in the US. The loyal FN base knows exactly who and what they’re supporting; doubt that is true for loyal ordinary GOP and DP voters.
Who and what would potential Trump or Sanders voters have been voting for? Trump is a class-A liar and doesn’t even bother to be consistent from one lie to the next. Is he even a Republican? Is Sanders a Democrat? Party elites seem to reject both.
The 6.1% addition to FN’s base this time does seem to be a combination of racism and economic insecurity, but not easily defined as strictly unemployment. Everybody seems to want to believe Le Pen’s gains were the left’s loss because it adds another excuse for the center to trash the left. The numbers don’t support that interpretation and UMP/LR has fought with FN for votes in the past three elections.
A description of what is doesn’t mean that it’s a value judgment. FN has historical roots that don’t exist in the US, but as political regressives the numbers in the US are probably similar, best evidence for that is from 1968. Instead of freaking out, maybe it’s better for that faction to be organized in its own party.
I doubt very much that they want King Louis or a Vichy government any more than the Tea Party wants King George or a Dictator. Before you respond, have you ever talked to a Tea Party voter? They are confused and uninformed but they aren’t evil, just ignorant.
Pardon me but in this particular conversation, I haven’t made any value judgment even though you have stated that I did. Let’s set “evil” etc. aside for the moment.
Does the Tea Party (even though it’s not a party) have old roots in a King George or a dictator? Even the symbolism that someone chose for them is anti-monarchy. Before 2008 who and what did those that identify with the TP affiliate politically with? I’d be surprised if the ratio was less than 80% Republican, including GOP leaning INDs. Of the remainder that identified as Democrats, doubt that racism wasn’t low.
I was being hyperbolic about FN but not fanciful. They have carved out a space on the far right in opposition to de Gaulle’s positions, during and post WWII. That is what distinguishes FN from the republicans. Otherwise both are anti-communist nationalists. Monarchists (and they do exist) and republicans more invested in a white France have a home in FN.
Now you are clearly talking about the party hierarchy and leadership. I took your original comment to be directed at the voters.
No — I’m talking about both the leadership and the party voter base. Voters don’t bother making the fine distinctions and as long as their party of choice doesn’t delete the primary reason for that voter fealty, they don’t go anywhere.
Weren’t we told that the GOP fundies wouldn’t go for Trump? All he had to say to them was that he opposed abortion and really, really does believe in god. The fundies know that is bs, but a rich white man that reflects the racism of fundies holds onto that GOP faction. In France, that faction would be a separate political party.
Sick of hearing that white racism shit.
So, racism doesn’t exist in either the US or France and doesn’t drive voter behavior? (And don’t liken me to that Democratic asshole or any Democratic politician, party elite, etc. that plays the race card. It’s disgusting regardless of which party preys on prejudices.)
What I thought we were discussing is FN in France. Why you keep conflating that with conservative (or Trump) US voters and getting defensive isn’t constructive. There is no US version of FN (unless we want to go back to the 1968 election and even there, you’d have to admit that race and not economics drove those voters because they turned right and have yet to look left).
Given a choice between two candidates that speak equally well to a voter’s economic distress (superficially that would be the FI and FN candidates in the 2017 election), what was the deciding factor for voters? Why is Le Pen and not Melenchon in the final?
Steven D says it better than me.
Many people are making that comparison.
Could be a lot of reasons. Could be the Paris shooting right before the election with Melenchon favoring more Muslim refugees.
IMHO, Melenchon’s desire to return to the Franc hurt him with otherwise Leftist voters. Older voters remember when the Franc and the Lira were less valuable than toilet paper. The German bankers are causing French unemployment but at least the currency has value.
Facts don’t support the wishful thinking that the shooting helped Le Pen. Her poll ratings were up to 27% a couple of months ago. Three weeks before the election she was polling at 23% to 25%. Two weeks 22.5% to 24.5%. Final week 22%-23%. Actual 21.3%.
Not being French and not living in France I wouldn’t presume to speak as to the thinking of leftist French voters.
Was thinking more “no” to Melenchon than “yes” to Le Pen.
Just supposition, wondering why a country with a left wing reputation would pick a neolib banker over a genuine leftist.
Ah, there’s your error: wondering why a country with a left wing reputation . I was making the same one a few months ago when I first saw the hype about Macron, read what little was available on him, and then was stumped. Taking a closer look at French presidential elections in the modern era revealed a bias in favor of conservatives, but it does depend on the splits on each side of the aisle and how much of the center is occupied by the latest iteration of “center.” French voters will take someone (and/or a political party) they loathe over someone (or party) they detest and fear.
Based on the poll of how Melenchon, Hamon, and Fillon voters intend to vote in the final, it’s a cakewalk for Macron (with a conservative assumption that the far left stays home and the others on the right show up for Le Pen). Current intentions to vote for Le Pen:
Melenchon 18%
Hamon 6%
Fillon 28%
That’s significantly low from where Le Pen needs those numbers to be for her to be competitive.
Agree with the cakewalk.
○ The Battle of Amiens: Macron jeered by Whirlpool workers after Le Pen’s publicity stunt | The Local |
○ Amiens: Le Pen upstages Macron at Whirlpool factory | Al Jazeera |
○ Macron ambushed by Le Pen on factory tour and booed by workers | Telegraph |
The effect how the incident is portrayed by the newspaper editors and producers of TV news will determine how
the masses perceive the two candidates. Amiens is the hometown [NYT] of Emmanuel Macron.
Worked better for Trump because nobody knew where he stood on anything and therefore, people could project their own hopes, etc. onto him. Le Pen is a known commodity more like the unrepentant racists in Congress than Trump.
○ Financial despair, addiction and the rise of suicide in white America | The Guardian – Feb. 2016 |
○ Why American Women Aren’t Living as Long as They Should (2014)
Or for fun this divide can be taken back to the 12th century
Thank you! That’s the historical reference I was looking for.
They would most definitely be fine with a dictator, so long as he’s their ideological dictator and hates the same people they do — maybe even elevating their own status a bit at the expense of those hated people. Authoritarianism is a constant strain through all of these movements worldwide. Look to Victor Orban for where they want to take us, but that’s just the first step and what they can currently get away with.
Quite remarkable age factor differences across party lines. Macron with En Marche! got a balanced representation across whole spectrum!
○ EU Stats: Youth Unemployment Figures
France stable around 25% where across EU countries Youth employment improved: Germany 8%, Netherlands 12% and UK 15%.
○ Mainstream Party Convergence and the Radical Right: Anti-Immigration and Protest Voting in Context
Looking at the maps TarheelDem linked to it might be as simple as being anti-EU on the borders where there might be more foreign competition. But that would not explain why only some areas bordering Spain did not go that way.
The map Marie3 linked to does. http://www.eurotrib.com/comments/2017/4/23/85825/7184/19?mode=alone;showrate=1#19
Final tally is in, see my update above.
○ Emmanuel Macron faces a really big problem if he becomes French president
“Electing him in May is now the only way to open up the chance of progressive, liberal and pro-European reform in France. French voters have made a bold break with the past. Now they must finish the revolution.”
Funny thing is on French TV they were saying that there was really no break. Macron was in Hollande’s cabinet.
And as I recall, he was the cabinet minister responsible for implementing the anti-labor govt measure that made Hollande so unpopular among the left.
He didn’t resign in protest but implemented it. Macron is indeed no change candidate — the Guardian editorial is just political propaganda trying to dress up a political Establishment technocrat from an elite university and banking background into some bold reformer for the People. A laughable stretch of the meaning of “change”, but necessary as the Guardian sees it to deal with strong public sentiment on this issue.
Macron will have so much to deal with once he takes office, against a backdrop of very high expectations, that he will be lucky 2-3 years from now to still be above water in polling favorables. More likely than not, and given Macron’s centrist political positioning and technocratic tinkering tendencies, in a few years the public will be referring to Macron as Micron.
This is stupid. Unless one views the 1974 election of Giscard d’Estaing as another instance of hope and change for youth.
Huh? Giscard was not mentioned in that article, as he? Please elaborate. I thought Giscard sold himself as a sort of independent Gaullist.
A bit surprised by comments @EuroTrib, true pessimism or just as
in the States, living in another world than the electorate?
○ French Elections – First Round – RTBF Again …
○ Two-thirds of Americans think that the Democratic Party is out of touch with the country
○ As Expected … Doomed! [Shattered]
○ Warning Signs …
Obama, in podcast interview, appears to agree that Britain’s Labour Party has ‘disintegrated’ | WaPo – Dec. 2016 |
“One union representative said 90 percent of the company’s workers voted for Marine Le Pen on Sunday.”
WOW!
Two-thirds of left-wingers expected to abstain … a preliminary to another upset “Brexit” result?
○ Marine Le Pen stands accused of plagiarizing parts of a speech by François Fillon
That’s true. And the thanks? Five years of Chirac, five years of Sarkozy (who appealed to Le Pen voters), and five years of Hollande (who did his best to kill off PS).
When does Varoufakis, who I like very much, admit that every time liberals and the left line up with the banksters, it’s only like giving a cookie to the banksters and the far right because both of those factions are unrelenting and will never stop until smashed to bits?
If Le Pen were in a position to win, she would be polling higher than 40-41% and Macron would be lower than 59-60%.
Oops, got lost in gaming out possible election outcomes and neglected to respond the “two-third of left wingers expected to abstain.”
In the first round, only 15% of voters can be viewed as left-wing. So, dropping to 5% only hurts Macron if the the third that does show up splits more than 30% for Le Pen AND the Fillon/LR voters that show up favor Le Pen by more than 20 points over Macron. The better option for lefties that can’t stomach voting for either Macron or Le Pen would be to show up cast un vote blanc. Blank ballots get counted and demonstrates a desire to participate.
Langue d’oc. That’s the language i was thinking of in the other post.