EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 788
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28894 Posts
On April 21 2017 05:59 LegalLord wrote: Well for one you presume Macron. That's not really clear. Against Fillon or Melenchon the win is more likely - especially because there is less polling data. And there's a lot of undecideds. In hindsight we can say that Clinton < Trump was a very real possibility - I even wrote a gigantic treatise on it - but we also had a prevailing "Trump has to win 7 out of 6 competitive states" vibe. And then things rapidly changed course. I don't think Le Pen will win. But I see multiple possible paths to victory for her. I wouldn't just dismiss her cuz Macron. Vs Melenchon it's also like 40-60. I could see her beat Fillon, because I could see myself staying home if those were my two options, but that seems like an extremely unlikely option. From looking at ![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election%2C_2017.png) , it's just, from where would either of those gain voters? I can see how Hamon's 7-8% can move melenchon or macron even higher, but I don't see how fillon vs le pen can happen. Of course stuff is possible. I see bookmakers give her 7:2 or so on average, that's much higher than I'd expect from the polls I've linked. I certainly don't see multiple paths to victory.  | ||
|
SkrollK
France580 Posts
Abstention is gonna win the vote. Big time. Like the previous elections, when Hollande got elected. Wonder why he was so impopular ? (amongst many other reasons, good or bad thats not my point) Cause he was elected by 55% of the 55% of people voting. That makes ~25%. (numbers are not accurate, tho not that far from reality, it's to make my point) And it happened before and it'll happen at the next one. Now back to Le Pen and our polls. Lets say Le Pen goes to 2nd turn. Whoever she is facing. Just like in 2002, you'll have like 75% of the french electors that will actually vote. And that will make the difference (again, number pulled out from my ...), because lets say X people go voting 1st turn. Say Le Pen gets 30%. So she gets 0,3X of voters. Now second turn, it's actually Y people coming to vote Y>>X, and the huge majority go voting because they are afraid of Le Pen being elected. So they vote against her. Now she might get a little more voters from people not voting 1st turn and voting only 2nd, but that'd be very scarce. Plus no left wing people will ever vote Le Pen, they'd rather vote Macron or Fillon IF Le Pen makes it to the second turn. So there is no way she gets more than 0,3Y (even that would be a lot). So there is no way she is elected, cause there is now way 0,4Y people vote for nobody (idk the expression in English for "voter blanc", mb fellow french mate can help me (i'm on phone it's really hard to check without losing my badly written prose)). Which means his/her opponent gets more than her. Trying to be a little more clear, i'd say that polls atm dont take into account non voters/people voting for no one. And, if Le Pen makes it to 2nd turn, there is a huge number of those people, who would have done nothing if Le Pen didnt make it, that will go vote 2nd turn just to vote against her. Just like in 2002. Sorry for the poor English, im on phone and its late. | ||
Poopi
France13018 Posts
Since there are two rounds in French elections, there is no way MLP gets elected. She can grab 1st place for the 1st round, but not the majority, and she'll lose the 2nd round no matter who her opponent is because there are more people wanting her to lose. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9331 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 21 2017 07:19 Sent. wrote: What if by some miracle Le Pen and Melenchon win the first round? I'm thinking mostly about Fillon supporters, who would they choose? Sadness, mostly. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8187 Posts
On April 21 2017 07:19 Sent. wrote: What if by some miracle Le Pen and Melenchon win the first round? I'm thinking mostly about Fillon supporters, who would they choose? Melenchon is winning by something like 15% in case of a second round. Fillon supporters might turn to Le Pen for the most radical of them, to Mélenchon for those who remember who Le Pen is or not vote. Le Pen is anyway to hated and feared to win any second round right now. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On April 21 2017 07:19 Sent. wrote: What if by some miracle Le Pen and Melenchon win the first round? I'm thinking mostly about Fillon supporters, who would they choose? Something like 25% Mélenchon, 35% Le Pen, 40% no vote. The weakest against Le Pen is not Mélenchon, but Fillon. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 21 2017 06:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: deaths in traffic are just like that? I don't know anybody who worries particularly about dying in a car accident, yet even in Norway, a country with 5 million inhabitants and one of the lowest rates of fatal car accidents in the world, experience a couple per week. Obviously terrorist attacks are different in the sense that traffic accidents are considered an unfortunate and inevitable consequence of the massive advantage of being able to quickly travel places by car, while it's much harder to find the positive side of terrorist attacks. But even for something that takes 100+ times as many lives as terrorist attacks, it's still a) something you stand an insignificant chance of dying from and b) something you don't care about when it happens. You'll still hear about a massive car crash killing 60 people, but nobody really cares if two people died. And if every survivor of car accidents with fatalities got out and yelled "Allahu Ackbar," maybe I'd be here, agreeing with you about these crazy people who think terrorism and traffic aren't just two rare occurances. We weren't talking about Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan, now the Champs-Elysées gunman as recent and deadly events fifteen years ago. You wouldn't be able to remember the last time someone got into a car and plowed down bystanders in Nice. We're talking about three high-profile attacks in two years and a handful of smaller ones. Intent and connection matters, even if we delve into darker depths like preventability. I have a sneaking suspicion if radical Christian terrorists killed over eighty people by car, shot a hundred in Paris, and a dozen in a satirist newsroom, we wouldn't be so quickly leaping to car accident and bathtub analogies. The response is essentially the second confirmation, in the same way we talk about murders different from accidental deaths and hijackings different than airline crashes, but islamic terrorism must be a "something" characterized by raw body count per year like cars. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue; these verbal sleights of hand are paid to acknowledge the fear and weakness. | ||
|
Ppjack
Belgium489 Posts
On April 21 2017 08:58 Danglars wrote: And if every survivor of car accidents with fatalities got out and yelled "Allahu Ackbar," maybe I'd be here, agreeing with you about these crazy people who think terrorism and traffic aren't just two rare occurances. We weren't talking about Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan, now the Champs-Elysées gunman as recent and deadly events fifteen years ago. You wouldn't be able to remember the last time someone got into a car and plowed down bystanders in Nice. We're talking about three high-profile attacks in two years and a handful of smaller ones. Intent and connection matters, even if we delve into darker depths like preventability. I have a sneaking suspicion if radical Christian terrorists killed over eighty people by car, shot a hundred in Paris, and a dozen in a satirist newsroom, we wouldn't be so quickly leaping to car accident and bathtub analogies. The response is essentially the second confirmation, in the same way we talk about murders different from accidental deaths and hijackings different than airline crashes, but islamic terrorism must be a "something" characterized by raw body count per year like cars. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue; these verbal sleights of hand are paid to acknowledge the fear and weakness. Since death kills more people than terrorism, maybe we should consider stop giving birth to any children in the future. That's a vain rhetoric. Terrorism causes a threat to vivre-ensemble. It just affect the cohesion of any society and should be tackled at its roots. One dead is equally atrocious as 100 deads. We should not be worried about the numbers but about what makes a small proportion of individuals from a particular group or movement act like that. Concerning french politics, Mélenchon vs Le Pen in the second round would be a nightmare. The first one is not fuelled with hatred, but still would lead to a fracturation of the society as surely as Le Pen would, and would cause France to bankrupt and EU to collapse as surely as his female counterpart (pretty much the same economical program). Macron, Hamon and Fillon are the only reasonnable choices and still offer a distinct approach economically and socially, but that at least is not total fantasy. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
The correct response is to acknowledge that terrorism creates new security risks that must be dealt with, but that is not primarily a political issue or one that should be used as a campaign strategy to pit parts of the population against another. The latter is much worse than a wrong comparison to accidents. | ||
|
Ppjack
Belgium489 Posts
On April 21 2017 09:06 Nyxisto wrote: yes, just waving terrorism of as a kind of natural catastrophy is misguided, but it's just as idiotic to escalate this to political or cultural dimensions where it has no place and which actually is the goal of terrorism in the first place. The whole impulse to compare terrorism to a car accident or whatever is the insanely poisonous atmosphere that is immediately created virtually minutes after an attack takes place. The correct response is to acknowledge that terrorism creates new security risks that must be dealt with, but that is not primarily a political issue or one that should be used as a campaign strategy to pit parts of the population against another. The latter is much worse than a wrong comparison to accidents. While i agree attacks should not be used by politics to push their political agenda (for a good part fuelled with fear and emotionnal responses), it is too simplistic to stick only with a securitarian response and dismiss the cultural and societal roots of this kind of terrorism. The debate should and must be held on the causes of the attacks. And they should be tackled with reason and serious. We cannot ignore any longer the ressentiments of any group of the society, it would only lead to further division and populism. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28894 Posts
I mean, I'm totally on board with like, a) fight IS on the ground in the middle east so any legitimacy granted through their attempted caliphate establishment falls flat, b) actively work towards greater integration of immigrants (which can even include stuff like monitoring / controlling mosques so we don't have saudis sponsoring imams preaching a particularly fundamentalist message, even if that's a tad more totalitarian than what I find ideal), c) try to avoid immigrant concentration being too high in particular cities / districts because that's when integration usually seems to fall short. I'm also fine with stuff like police in cities being armed whenever there's an increase in perceived threat, which I'm also fine with considering a new status quo, even though I've always really enjoyed our police not carrying weapons. I'm not at all fine with saying 'refugees or immigrants that'd otherwise be eligible can't come if they are muslim', but I hope that's not controversial. That said, what's your solution with regards to preventability? Also, I'm Norwegian. We've had exactly one terrorist attack, it was a radical Christian who killed 80 youth and children. It did not make me fear terrorism more or be more negative towards Christians. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On April 21 2017 09:19 Ppjack wrote: While i agree attacks should not be used by politics to push their political agenda (for a good part fuelled with fear and emotionnal responses), it is too simplistic to stick only with a securitarian response and dismiss the cultural and societal roots of this kind of terrorism. The debate should and must be held on the causes of the attacks. And they should be tackled with reason and serious. We cannot ignore any longer the ressentiments of any group of the society, it would only lead to further division and populism. If you could have a really sober discussion about the cultural side of things without the topic being immediately hijacked by extremists, sure. But that is not really the case. Every single one of these discussions, even here on TL immediately devolves into crap. And if you've reached that level you're doing more harm than good. | ||
|
Spaylz
Japan1743 Posts
On April 21 2017 06:48 SkrollK wrote: Just explaining to non french why, imo, there is nothing to worry about Le Pen. Polls are great and all, but you've got to understand something. Abstention is gonna win the vote. Big time. Like the previous elections, when Hollande got elected. Wonder why he was so impopular ? (amongst many other reasons, good or bad thats not my point) Cause he was elected by 55% of the 55% of people voting. That makes ~25%. (numbers are not accurate, tho not that far from reality, it's to make my point) I'm not contesting the veracity of your argument on Le Pen's chances, but this seems wrong to me. For one, Hollande won with 51.64% of votes, with 80.35% of the voting population casting their vote (which equals to about 37,000,000 voters). The overall population of France currently stands at some 66,000,000 and change, with about 15,000,000 of that being minors. So the numbers add up; it certainly wasn't 50% of 50% which elected Hollande, but 51% of 80%. Sources: 2012 Election | Insee | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
| ||
|
SkrollK
France580 Posts
On April 21 2017 14:06 Spaylz wrote: I'm not contesting the veracity of your argument on Le Pen's chances, but this seems wrong to me. For one, Hollande won with 51.64% of votes, with 80.35% of the voting population casting their vote (which equals to about 37,000,000 voters). The overall population of France currently stands at some 66,000,000 and change, with about 15,000,000 of that being minors. So the numbers add up; it certainly wasn't 50% of 50% which elected Hollande, but 51% of 80%. Sources: 2012 Election | Insee Omg you're perfectly right oO Should have checked before opening my mouth. I was somewhat convinced I was nearly right on the numbers, and I've even checked before like a year ago, and figures where probably wrong as well on the website where i checked. Well, apologies for the misinformation. Still, the point stand for the rest of the post : MLP won't get elected imo | ||
|
Makro
France16890 Posts
On April 21 2017 09:41 Nyxisto wrote: I guess on the security side we really need a well equipped European intelligence institution, maybe in the form of some agency comparable to Europol where information sharing is easier. We've had spotty police work during several of these incidents now and tighter security cooperation seems not really controversial. Also I think restriction of access to weapons is important but that is luckily not that big of a problem in Europe, although many of the French terrorists seem to be heavily armed. I really want to know how they get their hands on assault rifles. I also don't think people who are starting these privacy discussions right now and paint every security measure as totalitarian have chosen the best time for this. If you could have a really sober discussion about the cultural side of things without the topic being immediately hijacked by extremists, sure. But that is not really the case. Every single one of these discussions, even here on TL immediately devolves into crap. And if you've reached that level you're doing more harm than good. balkan war, whole warehouse full of ammunitions and weaponery went missing overnight, most of the what you can find today in blackmarket comes from there | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On April 21 2017 14:39 Big J wrote: The Dortmund attack seems to be solved. The police arrested a 28-year who betted against BVB shares, trying to get rich by blowing up the bus. If it's true then this guy is really unbelievable. An interesting bit is that he is described in papers as "German Russian" and all the local "alt-right" is in arms about this claiming that "when it is a Muslim, they always say he is French, not French Arab, but once it is a Russian, they shovel his nationality down our throats", this is literally the most discussed topic below the news about this. Somebody on facebook has jokingly asked for ban on Russians entering the EU as a mock of the alt-right's demand to ban all Muslims ... | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 21 2017 16:16 opisska wrote: If it's true then this guy is really unbelievable. An interesting bit is that he is described in papers as "German Russian" and all the local "alt-right" is in arms about this claiming that "when it is a Muslim, they always say he is French, not French Arab, but once it is a Russian, they shovel his nationality down our throats", this is literally the most discussed topic below the news about this. Somebody on facebook has jokingly asked for ban on Russians entering the EU as a mock of the alt-right's demand to ban all Muslims ... We laugh about this, but it is really scary how many people are trapped in this islamophobia bubble, who hijack any discussion and make it about whether something was reported properly. We are in the middle of a right-wing PC era in which certain groups will vigorously fight anything that is not worded to their liking. | ||
| ||
