French Election 2022

[Timur]

.

[Rezi]

Hidalgo/Jadot first round —> Macron second round.
The only big problem with Hidalgo/Jadot is that they’re anti-nuclear, but that’s kinda hard to avoid with the French left unfortunately. I probably would consider Melenchon if he made the second round normally, but right now is not the time for an anti-NATO candidate.

[Edouard]

I voted Hamon (equivalent of Hidalgo) in 2017 then Macron in the runoff

This time I will be voting Macron in the 1st round and Macron again in the runoff

For what polls indict, it's now likely to be a repeat of Marine le Pen vs Macron because the campaign of Zemmour and Pécresse is going too badly as of now to significantly change in just 2 weeks.

Mélenchon can still somehow beat Le Pen and qualify for a runoff if Zemmour manages to bump up again and take her some voters while some voters of the left would tactically vote Mélenchon

However every candidate facing Macron in the runoff is strongly defeated in polls

Macron has 67% against Zemmour

64% against Mélenchon

63% against Pécresse

The only who has a competitive runoff is actually Marine le Pen who polls around 44%, much better than five years ago in a potential runoff against Macron, I don't think that she can win, but the anti-Macron vote could coalize behind her and make this runoff a much shorter than the one from five years ago.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Edouard

[Ishan]

Roussel because a PCF revival would be funny and because Macron will get into the first round. If the election was more competitive, I'd support Macron and now I want Hidalgo to do badly and for Roussel to do well because it would be ironic seeing Mitterrand's creation be destroyed while the party he tried to destroy is doing better than his party.

[Pringles]

11 minutes ago, Patine said:

Of course, it's not just the French President. The National Assembly is equally important. As are the Regional, Department, and Commune elections. The problem in American media political coverage is that Congressional Elections are only important in promotion in the Mid-Terms - they're downplayed somewhat when running coterminously with Presidential Elections. The over-emphasis on the executive head over all organs of governance in a Constitutional, Electoral system is a bad and distorting trend that is harmful to Governance in proportion and with integrity and following the rules limiting their own conduct - as has been clearly seen in MANY of these nations. So, people need to look away from such monarchial thinking and think of the executive head as only one of many pieces in Governance, with specific and LIMITED, roles, along with all the others, who are, all of them, PUBLIC SERVANTS!

Do you have to criticize everything anyone does? It's like you just come on here once you're done with stuff for the day just to be negative. 

Edited March 24, 2022 by Pringles

[Edouard]

19 hours ago, Patine said:

Of course, it's not just the French President. The National Assembly is equally important. As are the Regional, Department, and Commune elections. The problem in American media political coverage is that Congressional Elections are only important in promotion in the Mid-Terms - they're downplayed somewhat when running coterminously with Presidential Elections. The over-emphasis on the executive head over all organs of governance in a Constitutional, Electoral system is a bad and distorting trend that is harmful to Governance in proportion and with integrity and following the rules limiting their own conduct - as has been clearly seen in MANY of these nations. So, people need to look away from such monarchial thinking and think of the executive head as only one of many pieces in Governance, with specific and LIMITED, roles, along with all the others, who are, all of them, PUBLIC SERVANTS!

Before the legislative election was not linked with the presidency in France

But parliamentary elections lasted 5 years while the presidency lasted 7 years (before 2000).

So we had 3 times of cohabitations, 1986-1988 with a right-wing government under a socialist president

1993-1995 with a second right-wing government under a socialist president

1997-2002 with a socialist government under a right-wing president

So in 2000 the presidency was reduced from 7 years to 5 years to align with legislative elections (they now happen 1/2 months after the presidential election). The reason why it was aligned was in the goal to have a clear action linked to the presidency because cohabitations were times of internal fightings between the PM and the president and those periods always helped the incumbent president to be re-elected if he could run for re-election.

So the idea back then was to get all means of actions for 5 years, what is true is that it has kind of reduced the spot on the national assembly whose every elections since 2002 are linked with whoever wins the presidency and it led to a complete downfall of turnout in legislative elections.

French tend to vote at 80% for electing their president and 50% for electing their MPs, in 2017 it went down to 42% of turnout I think, quite ironically, european elections had a higher turnout (50%) than the french legislative one.

Edited March 25, 2022 by Edouard

[jvikings1]

Looks like it will be Le Pen vs Macron in a rematch of 2017.

What is notable is that far-left/far-right/Eurosceptic parties received more than 50% of the vote in the first round, which would explain why the runoff polls are so tight. My guess is that far-left voters like the economic positions of Le Pen more than Macron (since she is further left on economics).

[Edouard]

I see a lot of Mélenchon voters telling on social networks that they will vote blank or abstain.

I am sincerely sad of such a behavior, because I would have voted Mélenchon against Le Pen if this had happened.

The electoral mystery in Mélenchon result is to know how many voters did cross to him not because they agreed with his radicalism but more because they were willing to tactically push for the "best candidate of the left" (in terms of polling numbers).

[Timur]

44 minutes ago, Edouard said:

I see a lot of Mélenchon voters telling on social networks that they will vote blank or abstain.

I am sincerely sad of such a behavior, because I would have voted Mélenchon against Le Pen if this had happened.

The electoral mystery in Mélenchon result is to know how many voters did cross to him not because they agreed with his radicalism but more because they were willing to tactically push for the "best candidate of the left" (in terms of polling numbers).

Isn't Melenchon a conspiray theorist?

[Pringles]

13 minutes ago, Timur said:

Isn't Melenchon a conspiray theorist?

I think someone pointed out in the discord today that hes suggested that the government will kill someone to prevent his victory. This was a while back I think. 

[Hestia]

5 minutes ago, Pringles said:

I think someone pointed out in the discord today that hes suggested that the government will kill someone to prevent his victory. This was a while back I think. 

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20210608-firebrand-leftist-accused-of-pushing-conspiracy-theories-over-french-elections

[Hestia]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Has this accusation just been dismissed as a, "crazy conspiracy," because that's how it sounds on the surface, or has anyone else looked into validating or disproving it? First World Governments have become notoriously more ruthless, criminal, and capable of, "soft tyranny," and justifying, "singular acts of atrocity," by, "necessity," in the last several decades. Although not nearly to the degree of China, Russia, and many small, totalitarian regimes, certainly (yet...), what is viewed as, "conscienable," and, "necessary," here and there - and growing in occurance - is rapidly becoming downright frightening. So, did anyone act to disprove this theory, or was it just dismissed off-hand for, "sounding crazy?" This is a SERIOUS question.

Well the election was today and nothing happened. He also gave no proof to say that it was true. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution normally in these cases. You say 'validating or disproving it'...well there really isn't a great way to disprove something that never happened. There's no paper trail or anything...because it was never discussed. I don't think Macron was seriously scared about a left-wing candidate who didn't overlap with his voters whatsoever and wasn't polling anywhere near him. 

[Hestia]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Perhaps - just musing and speculating here, not claiming knowledge - that his cry of the idea is why it didn't happen. It would look very conspicuous if it did happen AFTER he made such a statement, don't you think? And you say there, "was no paper trail," as though a fact you knew for sure. If there was one, it would have been in the same seditious secrecy all First World Governments like to hide their dirt, activities that would anger and offend their people (and even are malign to their people), and evidence of the high crimes of these Government ("classified for national security purposes,"). But, secrets that none of these Governments has the legal or Constitutional right or privilege to keep from their people, because said people are the empowerment and source of legitimacy of these Governments, and thus each and every such seditious secret is a count of high treason by said Governments against their people. But THAT is where the paper trail would be, if it existed. I don't claim to know for sure if such a plan was made or not - and I suggest you show a sense of realism and follow suit there.

I'm showing a sense of realism in the fact that not every single government wants to murder its political opposition? 

[ShortKing]

6 minutes ago, Patine said:

Perhaps - just musing and speculating here, not claiming knowledge - that his cry of the idea is why it didn't happen. It would look very conspicuous if it did happen AFTER he made such a statement, don't you think? And you say there, "was no paper trail," as though a fact you knew for sure. If there was one, it would have been in the same seditious secrecy all First World Governments like to hide their dirt, activities that would anger and offend their people (and even are malign to their people), and evidence of the high crimes of these Government ("classified for national security purposes,"). But, secrets that none of these Governments has the legal or Constitutional right or privilege to keep from their people, because said people are the empowerment and source of legitimacy of these Governments, and thus each and every such seditious secret is a count of high treason by said Governments against their people. But THAT is where the paper trail would be, if it existed. I don't claim to know for sure if such a plan was made or not - and I suggest you show a sense of realism and follow suit there.

I think the burden of proof should fall on the person making the assertion that the government has plans to stage a murder plot, personally.

[Pringles]

7 minutes ago, Patine said:

and I suggest you show a sense of realism and follow suit there.

No offense I guess but I don't think anybody here has a clue what sense of realism you're on about. 

[Hestia]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Certainly not. Canada and (modern) Iceland never have, and New Zealand only has one sketchy story of a faint possibility.

The inherent terms in your post here that you are downplaying too much are, "government," and, "political opposition." Politics, as well as religion, can bring out the best - and worst - in people. The greatest flowers of humanity - but also the most ruthless, ambitious, and cruel are drawn to these pursuits. And nationality is not an inherent factor to any sort of ratio, here. In fact, First World Nations have much more of an incentive to deal with perceived threats to political orders that are cherished from sudden, tumultuous change (which is all the easier if free and fair elections are allowed to completely fall to the choice - or feared choice - of the masses), and, "surgical," solutions (which includes, among other things, assassinations, but also bogus litigation and criminal charges, character assassination, changing electoral rules at the last moment, and other such tactics) are far more demanded than, "sloppy and chaotic," Third World solutions, but are all on the table, including the lethal ones. Politicians in power clinically very often become paranoid, and even prone to sociopathy, in widely varying degrees, but, again, nationality is not a factor. Governments are all CAPABLE of murdering their political opposition, regardless of frequency of it happening. It doesn't help that the vast majority of Governments already view themselves as above their own laws in terms of criminal and civil liability from actions committed in office.

You seem to hold a belief, even if not stated outright as such, that certain ideologies and certain nations inherently hold a higher moral quality, and others inherently hold a lower moral quality. Although those in each category may shift over time for, this tendency seems to be there, and dominate a lot of your rhetoric. You use the term, "both sides thinking," as though it's a great sin, and to push the false narrative that only two real sides to each of these issues exist. This is called Manichaean thinking. It is a destructive, ruinous, misguided, anti-intellectual, unethical, unthinking, and monstrous viewpoint, that you, and any other decent, good, moral person, who loves their world and wants a decent, livable future should denounce and abandon, completely, forever.

Your change didn't last very long. Blah blah blah, everyone wants to murder their opponents, if you disagree with me that inherently it's very plausible, you're a wretched, stupid, unethical human being. Oh, and to stop you from posting 'that's not what I said', I'll amend my statement. "Your thinking is destructive, stupid, unethical, and monstrous". Pretty par for the course. This is pretty low, even for you. Consider yourself blocked. 

[Edouard]

@TimurMélenchon has a lot of flaws

He backs Maduro

But he is a bit less worse than Le Pen because I do believe that he would be more a Tsipras if he ended up in power, while I do fear that Marine le Pen would end up like an Orban.

That's why I gave the lesson to say that I do regret Melenchonists who refuse to vote for Macron against Le Pen, because Mélenchon was not even in my 6 first voting options for the first round, he was just before Marine and Zemmour (and maybe another or two) but I would have voted for him in a runoff against Le Pen.

Edited July 19, 2022 by Edouard

[The Blood]

16 minutes ago, Patine said:

I probably suspect a few bad apples in the Discord server you share, whom I won't name, to blame for this, ultimately.

Yes, Patine, all of us devious, conniving hooligans known as the "Doblets" are laughing over your argument in our Discord server, with our childish, obnoxious ways. Please, don't argue that it's an unreasonable suggestion from a French Presidential candidate that someone would be killed to manipulate the race, and then pretend a harsh response is unwarranted.

Edited April 11, 2022 by The Blood

[Cenzonico]

5 minutes ago, The Blood said:

Yes, Patine, all of us devious, conniving hooligans known as the "Doblets" are laughing over your argument in our Discord server, with our childish, obnoxious ways. Please, don't argue that it's an unreasonable suggestion from a French Presidential candidate that someone would be killed to manipulate the race, and then pretend a harsh response is unwarranted.

exactly

[The Blood]

11 minutes ago, The Blood said:

Yes, Patine, all of us devious, conniving hooligans known as the "Doblets" are laughing over your argument in our Discord server, with our childish, obnoxious ways. Please, don't argue that it's an unreasonable suggestion from a French Presidential candidate that someone would be killed to manipulate the race, and then pretend a harsh response is unwarranted.

And this isn't even entirely about your argument. I'm sorry if Manichean thinking continues to be your final bane, but continuing to approach these arguments with the same self-righteous, rude attitude that you have while seemingly trying to prove your intelligence by using dead religions as examples for your argument, is, to say the least, a large part of why Hestia reacted the way he did. I'm going to post the Democratic Party symbol now. I'm not going to directly insult you here, but I think you draw conclusions about how I think of you in this thread by the image below. Also, sorry if the mere sight of the symbol triggers your duopoly fears, Patine.

Edited April 11, 2022 by The Blood

[Rezi]

24 minutes ago, Patine said:

This is not at all a paraphrasing of what I was saying at all. But if you want to block me on a disingenuous smear of a false paraphrasing, and insulting me based on this to boot, you are not blocking on some high horse, but quite the opposite. But it is your choice. I am bone sick of having my posts misrepresented to slander me, insult me, and make me look bad. It's a very bad habit among certain posters, here. But you weren't as bad for it as most. I probably suspect a few bad apples in the Discord server you share, whom I won't name, to blame for this, ultimately.

Perhaps if you didn't view yourself as a Marduk-esque figure, this wouldn't be happening. Always looking to dilapidate everybody else to prop up some forum created out of our skeletal substructure in which beings made in your honor drudge around the clock to maintain your requiescence.

[Edouard]

Some commentators say that this election will be the most competitive since 1981 (where Mitterand won with less than 1% I think) and where the debate definitively played the final victory.

I don't know to be honest, I tend to believe that the National Front was always stopped in every runoff in regional elections, not only in 2014 but also in 2020 and 2021. I can't imagine Marine le Pen winning the presidency while her party kept failing regional elections with the runoff system.

Maybe am I too positive, but I have issues to think that polls which give Marine le Pen at 49% are the symbol of what will really happen on April 24th.

If she would win, it would mean that Eric Zemmour has fully dediabolized her, and her purchasing power tactic has worked all the way.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Edouard

[ShortKing]

I could be biased because I do personally like Macron and would have voted for him in the first round too, but I feel like he's gonna win the second round.

[Hestia]

4 minutes ago, Edouard said:

Some commentators say that this election will be the most competitive since 1981 (where Mitterand won with less than 1% I think) and where the debate definitively played the final victory.

I don't know to be honest, I tend to believe that the National Front was always stopped in every runoff in regional elections, not only in 2014 but also in 2020 and 2021. I can't imagine Marine le Pen winning the presidency while her party kept failing regional elections with the runoff system.

Maybe am I too positive, but I have issues to think that polls which give Marine le Pen at 49% are the symbol of what will really happen on April 24th.

If she would win, it would mean that Eric Zemmour has fully dediabolized her, and her purchasing power tactic has worked all the way.

I think Macron will do well at the debate and we will end at like a 56-44, 55-45 type deal. Time will tell

[Timur]

45 minutes ago, Patine said:

What are the chances the French analog to the CIA or MI6 would hand over - or make finding such documents, if they existed, even possible, at all? The CIA proper certainly didn't cooperate in the investigation of JFK's assassination, nor did MI6 in the three attempted assassinations of Gerry Adams.

I would say that the CIA's refusal to hand over the documents is to be condemned, and Biden's attitude seems suspicious (looks like using COVID as an excuse). However, these are different circumstances.