|
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. |
On April 26 2017 19:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 19:04 a_flayer wrote:
So you know for a fact that Macron is more towards what those people who are not voting for him want? Yes, I know it for a fact.
OK then. I know for a fact that you're a woman. Inside your head, you really feel as if you are a woman. I know this. I know your feelings and opinions better than you do yourself. I know how much you weigh one thing over another inside your own mind, and the conclusion is inevitable.
I just can't get over this nonsense of "voting for the lesser evil". What if you consider things on a more strategic level, and don't want to support another 4 or 5 years of status quo? What if you don't want to be additional percent of support that Macron gets? What if you want Macron to have 45% support, instead of 46% versus Le Pens 30% just so he knows that not 46% of the people of France are behind him and his ideas? What if you wanted to upset the Democrats to such an extent that they would change their tone & messaging for the next elections and that's why you didn't vote for Hillary? What if you wanted to help the Green Party in the US grow, and that's why you voted for them, rather than voting to prevent Trump from happening?
There are so many aspects that you can choose to take into account when voting. Suggesting that one should always just vote for the lesser evil is far too simplistic, in my opinion. Some of the arrogance and dismissal that people in this thread show towards those who have opinions that differ from them is appalling to me.
|
If you look at where the political compass puts the candidates it's more obvious why it's not so obvious if Melenchon voters will prefer Macron over Le Pen.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/france2017
although the placement might be quite controversial... 
|
On April 26 2017 19:16 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 19:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2017 19:04 a_flayer wrote:
So you know for a fact that Macron is more towards what those people who are not voting for him want? Yes, I know it for a fact. OK then. I know for a fact that you're a woman. Inside your head, you really feel as if you are a woman. I know this. I know your feelings and opinions better than you do yourself. I know how much you weigh one thing over another inside your own mind, and the conclusion is inevitable. I just can't get over this nonsense of "voting for the lesser evil". What if you consider things on a more strategic level, and don't want to support another 4 or 5 years of status quo? What if you don't want to be additional percent of support that Macron gets? What if you want Macron to have 45% support, instead of 46% versus Le Pens 30% just so he knows that not 46% of the people of France are behind him and his ideas? What if you wanted to upset the Democrats to such an extent that they would change their tone & messaging for the next elections and that's why you didn't vote for Hillary? What if you wanted to help the Green Party in the US grow, and that's why you voted for them, rather than voting to prevent Trump from happening? There are so many aspects that you can choose to take into account when voting. Suggesting that one should always just vote for the lesser evil is far too simplistic, in my opinion. Some of the arrogance and dismissal that people in this thread show towards those who have opinions that differ from them is appalling to me.
A hundred and one reasons to give the power to a parliament (without minimum percentage apart from seats) and not the executive.
|
France12886 Posts
On April 26 2017 19:16 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 19:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2017 19:04 a_flayer wrote:
So you know for a fact that Macron is more towards what those people who are not voting for him want? Yes, I know it for a fact. OK then. I know for a fact that you're a woman. Inside your head, you really feel as if you are a woman. I know this. I know your feelings and opinions better than you do yourself. I know how much you weigh one thing over another inside your own mind, and the conclusion is inevitable. I just can't get over this nonsense of "voting for the lesser evil". What if you consider things on a more strategic level, and don't want to support another 4 or 5 years of status quo? What if you don't want to be additional percent of support that Macron gets? What if you want Macron to have 45% support, instead of 46% versus Le Pens 30% just so he knows that not 46% of the people of France are behind him and his ideas? What if you wanted to upset the Democrats to such an extent that they would change their tone & messaging for the next elections and that's why you didn't vote for Hillary? What if you wanted to help the Green Party in the US grow, and that's why you voted for them, rather than voting to prevent Trump from happening? There are so many aspects that you can choose to take into account when voting. Suggesting that one should always just vote for the lesser evil is far too simplistic, in my opinion. Some of the arrogance and dismissal that people in this thread show towards those who have opinions that differ from them is appalling to me.
On a strategic level?
Well then on a strategic level your vote doesn't matter since you are one person among millions.
That means your vote is mostly symbolic, in which case you should vote for the lesser evil since you'll have the least regrets if the evil actually wins.
Upset the democrats? Like they would actually care, please get real :x.
|
On April 26 2017 19:16 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 19:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2017 19:04 a_flayer wrote:
So you know for a fact that Macron is more towards what those people who are not voting for him want? Yes, I know it for a fact. OK then. I know for a fact that you're a woman. Inside your head, you really feel as if you are a woman. I know this. I know your feelings and opinions better than you do yourself. I know how much you weigh one thing over another inside your own mind, and the conclusion is inevitable. I just can't get over this nonsense of "voting for the lesser evil". What if you consider things on a more strategic level, and don't want to support another 4 or 5 years of status quo? What if you don't want to be additional percent of support that Macron gets? What if you want Macron to have 45% support, instead of 46% versus Le Pens 30% just so he knows that not 46% of the people of France are behind him and his ideas? What if you wanted to upset the Democrats to such an extent that they would change their tone & messaging for the next elections and that's why you didn't vote for Hillary? What if you wanted to help the Green Party in the US grow, and that's why you voted for them, rather than voting to prevent Trump from happening? There are so many aspects that you can choose to take into account when voting. Suggesting that one should always just vote for the lesser evil is far too simplistic, in my opinion. Some of the arrogance and dismissal that people in this thread show towards those who have opinions that differ from them is appalling to me.
He's talking about friends of his. I know that this is the internet, but can we please assume, for once, that people are not absolute morons and are not arguing in bad faith. He presumably has discussed politics with his friends and knows their opinions on most things political?
|
On April 26 2017 19:46 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 19:16 a_flayer wrote:On April 26 2017 19:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2017 19:04 a_flayer wrote:
So you know for a fact that Macron is more towards what those people who are not voting for him want? Yes, I know it for a fact. OK then. I know for a fact that you're a woman. Inside your head, you really feel as if you are a woman. I know this. I know your feelings and opinions better than you do yourself. I know how much you weigh one thing over another inside your own mind, and the conclusion is inevitable. I just can't get over this nonsense of "voting for the lesser evil". What if you consider things on a more strategic level, and don't want to support another 4 or 5 years of status quo? What if you don't want to be additional percent of support that Macron gets? What if you want Macron to have 45% support, instead of 46% versus Le Pens 30% just so he knows that not 46% of the people of France are behind him and his ideas? What if you wanted to upset the Democrats to such an extent that they would change their tone & messaging for the next elections and that's why you didn't vote for Hillary? What if you wanted to help the Green Party in the US grow, and that's why you voted for them, rather than voting to prevent Trump from happening? There are so many aspects that you can choose to take into account when voting. Suggesting that one should always just vote for the lesser evil is far too simplistic, in my opinion. Some of the arrogance and dismissal that people in this thread show towards those who have opinions that differ from them is appalling to me. He's talking about friends of his. I know that this is the internet, but can we please assume, for once, that people are not absolute morons and are not arguing in bad faith. He presumably has discussed politics with his friends and knows their opinions on most things political?
I'd like to think so too, but I didn't take it as such due to the following exchange:
On April 26 2017 16:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Many friends who voted Mélenchon refusing to vote Macron. Apparently the Berniebros don't have the monopoly on political immaturity.
I took this full statement in such a way that he meant to extend this notion of immaturity well beyond just his particular group of friends, and indeed anyone who won't vote for a candidate that they can't get behind (whether its Macron or Hillary).
On April 26 2017 19:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 19:04 a_flayer wrote:
So you know for a fact that Macron is more towards what those people who are not voting for him want? Yes, I know it for a fact.
He then responded to my generic mention of "those people who voted for him" (not 'your friends that voted for him') and suggested that yes, he does know that "those people" are in fact closer to Macron than they are to Le Pen, and should thus vote for Macron.
I think the political compass mentioned by Noizhende is a good indication that this does not necessarily have to ring true - especially if you consider their position towards the EU (and Melenchons position on NATO).
|
That compass makes no sense. It has Hamon as a centrist and Macron more right wing than Fillon. It's almost as bad as the one from the US where Clinton is very right wing.
|
On April 26 2017 08:56 warding wrote:
TheDwf what do you think are the causes of joblessness?
Imbalances within the eurozone, when other countries manage to lower wages they export unemployment towards us. The French working class is a bit more resistant so it takes more time for our governments to close the gap
Productivity gains were not shared to increase wages or reduce working time
Weakened internal demand because the capital took back several points in the distribution of the added value (popular consumption is like 70% of the demand)
Globalization/free trade, we lost like 2,5 millions of industry job since 1980, when you factor out what was lost because of technological progress, it's still pretty massive
Lack of industrial policy
Decrease in public investment (the State is the first investor)
Millions of overtime hours not paid, that's the equivalent of a few dozens/hundreds of thousands of jobs
Anti-inflation obsession
Austerity/stupid use of public spending, subsidizing dividends instead of recruiting civil servants where it's needed (teachers, cops, physicians, nurses, firefighters… all of them demonstrated to protest against understaffing those last few months/years)
Financialization and shareholder greed → laying off people for short-term benefits
And generally capitalism cares about profit, not jobs. It's simply not tailored to reach full employment. If bosses can allocate the extra workload between existing workers instead of hiring, they will do so. Understaffing is the rule, from their point of view or individual/short-term perspective intensifying the existing work (with more suffering at work as a result: accidents, musculoskeletal troubles, stress, burnouts, etc.) is more profitable. Unemployment is collectively useful to exert pressure on workers and tame them
On April 26 2017 15:58 RvB wrote:
I'm interested in those links.
Sorry it would have been in French
On April 26 2017 16:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:Le Pen goes full alterantive facts on TF1 apparently. Not all that surprising, the FN has made lies its trademark. sourceMany friends who voted Mélenchon refusing to vote Macron. Apparently the Berniebros don't have the monopoly on political immaturity.
There is no immaturity in this. Macron will easily win even with mediocre reports from the radical left, so there's no need for an automatic Macron vote there. No vote for Le Pen is enough. Remember what Chirac did out of the 82% that the left gave him in 2002? The CPE and Sarkozy. Macron repeated yesterday that he won't even tone down his program, so he can get lost. He's too dumb to realize that he's here simply because of insane media/poll bombing + luck, so many of his voters chose him by default, 60% of his second round votes will be purely out of reject, yet he'll arrogantly behave like it was a plebiscite for his policies and he'll proceed to bulldoze workers' rights without debate as early as in a few weeks. #SansMoiLe7Mai
On April 26 2017 17:16 Agathon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 07:00 TheDwf wrote:On April 26 2017 06:50 Agathon wrote:On April 26 2017 05:52 Poopi wrote:On April 26 2017 05:43 TheDwf wrote:
Macron's results = 1 million of extra jobless people I remember that line from the Youtube video of some angry hairy dude, so I'll ask there in hope for an honest answer: is there a proof that this is (100%) due to his politics when he was finance minister, and not the natural consequences of his predecessors? If so, where is it? If there isn't, then you are being fallacious so why should I listen to you? This kind of numbers come from the brain of a politician (politicians never lie...obviously...) for the gullibles. ... ![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/%C3%89valuationCh%C3%B4mageFranceAo%C3%BBt2015.png) Figures from Pôle emploi 3 big issues in your comment : 1- Pole Emploi web site says otherwise. Your source is wikipedia. Not Pole emploi. 2- You consider all categories as "jobless". An exemple in my family : my sister has a job and seeks a better one closer to her home. She's one of the 5.5 million job seekers. And she's not alone. 3- Macron was minister from august 2014 to august 2016. Not from 2012 to 2015. 1 million more jobless people -> wrong. 1 million more jobseekers -> wrong. Macron's responsability -> wrong.
1) You're serious? http://statistiques.pole-emploi.org/stmt/publication
2) Yeah you can remove two categories, it changes little. And you'd actually have to add all the people who are off statistics.
3) Macron was secrétaire général adjoint à l'Élysée at the beginning of Hollande's mandate, i.e. close economic advisor and one of the main inspirers for Hollande's economic policy (e. g. the CICE). No wonder why people reelected him if they think he was only in power in 2014-2016…
|
On April 26 2017 20:41 RvB wrote:
That compass makes no sense. It has Hamon as a centrist and Macron more right wing than Fillon. It's almost as bad as the one from the US where Clinton is very right wing.
The thing is that they redefine left and right as simply a political economy axis, in different countries the public view of left and right will be axes differing from it in angle on the compass plane. (eg in the usa the left/right axis in public discourse is more or less vertical, and the more a country stops discussing economic models the more left and right will align with the social liberal vs authoritarian axis)
So, yes it's not a very good representation of how right or left wing someone is when you translate a common 1 dimensional political view into this 2d view, but i think it gives a very good feeling for how relatively ideologically different candidates are, measured by the distance of them on the map, independent of the orientation of the left/right axis.
therefore it may give insight into the question of "how likely is someone who voted for x to vote for y next time?" by simply looking at the distances of the dots
|
On April 26 2017 20:25 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 19:46 Acrofales wrote:On April 26 2017 19:16 a_flayer wrote:On April 26 2017 19:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2017 19:04 a_flayer wrote:
So you know for a fact that Macron is more towards what those people who are not voting for him want? Yes, I know it for a fact. OK then. I know for a fact that you're a woman. Inside your head, you really feel as if you are a woman. I know this. I know your feelings and opinions better than you do yourself. I know how much you weigh one thing over another inside your own mind, and the conclusion is inevitable. I just can't get over this nonsense of "voting for the lesser evil". What if you consider things on a more strategic level, and don't want to support another 4 or 5 years of status quo? What if you don't want to be additional percent of support that Macron gets? What if you want Macron to have 45% support, instead of 46% versus Le Pens 30% just so he knows that not 46% of the people of France are behind him and his ideas? What if you wanted to upset the Democrats to such an extent that they would change their tone & messaging for the next elections and that's why you didn't vote for Hillary? What if you wanted to help the Green Party in the US grow, and that's why you voted for them, rather than voting to prevent Trump from happening? There are so many aspects that you can choose to take into account when voting. Suggesting that one should always just vote for the lesser evil is far too simplistic, in my opinion. Some of the arrogance and dismissal that people in this thread show towards those who have opinions that differ from them is appalling to me. He's talking about friends of his. I know that this is the internet, but can we please assume, for once, that people are not absolute morons and are not arguing in bad faith. He presumably has discussed politics with his friends and knows their opinions on most things political? I'd like to think so too, but I didn't take it as such due to the following exchange: Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 16:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Many friends who voted Mélenchon refusing to vote Macron. Apparently the Berniebros don't have the monopoly on political immaturity. I took this full statement in such a way that he meant to extend this notion of immaturity well beyond just his particular group of friends, and indeed anyone who won't vote for a candidate that they can't get behind (whether its Macron or Hillary). Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 19:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2017 19:04 a_flayer wrote:
So you know for a fact that Macron is more towards what those people who are not voting for him want? Yes, I know it for a fact. He then responded to my generic mention of "those people who voted for him" (not 'your friends that voted for him') and suggested that yes, he does know that "those people" are in fact closer to Macron than they are to Le Pen, and should thus vote for Macron. I think the political compass mentioned by Noizhende is a good indication that this does not necessarily have to ring true - especially if you consider their position towards the EU (and Melenchons position on NATO).
I was indeed talking about my friends.
I think I have the right to think that the whole "Bernie or Bust" thing was immature.
Bernie would have also needed Clinton supporters to win. If everyone says "my candidate or burst" during the primaries, we never ever win. You can't enter a primary implying you will not ever vote for anyone else than your guy while it's implied that if your guy wins you will need everyone, even the losers to vote for him.
To come back to my friends and people minded like them (which are a huge part of his voters), they consider that Le Pen winning would be the utter and absolute apocalypse, and if they were alone to have to chose of course they would prefer a million times anyone else. But they know he's gonna probably win anyway and it's so cool and so French to be a rebel and do the others do the bad job for you while you keep your moral superiority.
|
So you genuinely don't think that there should be both people who are moderate in their political beliefs and people who have strong political beliefs? Everyone has to show the same flexibility regarding which candidate they vote for regardless of their own ideological views versus that of the candidate? That seems like such an odd position to hold.
I certainly wouldn't expect all Hillary Clinton voters to be on board with Bernie Sanders. I'd have expected a lot more voters to vote for Bernie rather than abstain though, compared to the amount of potential Bernie voters who went to Trump or abstained. But, again, rather than expecting people to fall in line, or calling them names (such as immature, dumb, or pieces of shit -- all of which I've seen in this thread), I'd leave it up to them.
|
On April 26 2017 21:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 20:25 a_flayer wrote:On April 26 2017 19:46 Acrofales wrote:On April 26 2017 19:16 a_flayer wrote:On April 26 2017 19:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2017 19:04 a_flayer wrote:
So you know for a fact that Macron is more towards what those people who are not voting for him want? Yes, I know it for a fact. OK then. I know for a fact that you're a woman. Inside your head, you really feel as if you are a woman. I know this. I know your feelings and opinions better than you do yourself. I know how much you weigh one thing over another inside your own mind, and the conclusion is inevitable. I just can't get over this nonsense of "voting for the lesser evil". What if you consider things on a more strategic level, and don't want to support another 4 or 5 years of status quo? What if you don't want to be additional percent of support that Macron gets? What if you want Macron to have 45% support, instead of 46% versus Le Pens 30% just so he knows that not 46% of the people of France are behind him and his ideas? What if you wanted to upset the Democrats to such an extent that they would change their tone & messaging for the next elections and that's why you didn't vote for Hillary? What if you wanted to help the Green Party in the US grow, and that's why you voted for them, rather than voting to prevent Trump from happening? There are so many aspects that you can choose to take into account when voting. Suggesting that one should always just vote for the lesser evil is far too simplistic, in my opinion. Some of the arrogance and dismissal that people in this thread show towards those who have opinions that differ from them is appalling to me. He's talking about friends of his. I know that this is the internet, but can we please assume, for once, that people are not absolute morons and are not arguing in bad faith. He presumably has discussed politics with his friends and knows their opinions on most things political? I'd like to think so too, but I didn't take it as such due to the following exchange: On April 26 2017 16:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Many friends who voted Mélenchon refusing to vote Macron. Apparently the Berniebros don't have the monopoly on political immaturity. I took this full statement in such a way that he meant to extend this notion of immaturity well beyond just his particular group of friends, and indeed anyone who won't vote for a candidate that they can't get behind (whether its Macron or Hillary). On April 26 2017 19:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 26 2017 19:04 a_flayer wrote:
So you know for a fact that Macron is more towards what those people who are not voting for him want? Yes, I know it for a fact. He then responded to my generic mention of "those people who voted for him" (not 'your friends that voted for him') and suggested that yes, he does know that "those people" are in fact closer to Macron than they are to Le Pen, and should thus vote for Macron. I think the political compass mentioned by Noizhende is a good indication that this does not necessarily have to ring true - especially if you consider their position towards the EU (and Melenchons position on NATO). I was indeed talking about my friends. I think I have the right to think that the whole "Bernie or Bust" thing was immature. Bernie would have also needed Clinton supporters to win. If everyone says "my candidate or burst" during the primaries, we never ever win. You can't enter a primary implying you will not ever vote for anyone else than your guy while it's implied that if your guy wins you will need everyone, even the losers to vote for him. To come back to my friends and people minded like them (which are a huge part of his voters), they consider that Le Pen winning would be the utter and absolute apocalypse, and if they were alone to have to chose of course they would prefer a million times anyone else. But they know he's gonna probably win anyway and it's so cool and so French to be a rebel and do the others do the bad job for you while you keep your moral superiority.
zzz It's not a matter of moral superiority:
On April 26 2017 20:51 TheDwf wrote:
There is no immaturity in this. Macron will easily win even with mediocre reports from the radical left, so there's no need for an automatic Macron vote there. No vote for Le Pen is enough. Remember what Chirac did out of the 82% that the left gave him in 2002? The CPE and Sarkozy. Macron repeated yesterday that he won't even tone down his program, so he can get lost. He's too dumb to realize that he's here simply because of insane media/poll bombing + luck, so many of his voters chose him by default, 60% of his second round votes will be purely out of reject, yet he'll arrogantly behave like it was a plebiscite for his policies and he'll proceed to bulldoze workers' rights without debate as early as in a few weeks. #SansMoiLe7Mai
Also most of us will still go if danger arises because Macron leads an arrogant and catastrophic campaign à la Clinton (which he's doing as of now...), we're not stupid
|
On April 26 2017 19:23 Noizhende wrote:If you look at where the political compass puts the candidates it's more obvious why it's not so obvious if Melenchon voters will prefer Macron over Le Pen. https://www.politicalcompass.org/france2017although the placement might be quite controversial...
Macron's program being as "authoritarian" as Mélenchon's and Hamon's ? That's BS
unrelated sidenote : it's kinda funny to see Mélenchon's supporters blaming Hamon for not retiring, while the same people were absolutely refusing to retire Mélechon from the race when Hamon was at 15% and Mélenchon at 10% in the polls^^
|
On April 26 2017 21:52 a_flayer wrote:
So you genuinely don't think that there should be both people who are moderate in their political beliefs and people who have strong political beliefs? Everyone has to show the same flexibility regarding which candidate they vote for regardless of their own ideological views versus that of the candidate? That seems like such an odd position to hold.
I certainly wouldn't expect all Hillary Clinton voters to be on board with Bernie Sanders. I'd have expected a lot more voters to vote for Bernie rather than abstain though, compared to the amount of potential Bernie voters who went to Trump or abstained. But, again, rather than expecting people to fall in line, or calling them names (such as immature, dumb, or pieces of shit -- all of which I've seen in this thread), I'd leave it up to them.
In a winner takes all race? Yes, you need to pragmatic and accept that you might have to vote for a candidate you don't like because the other option(s) are even worse.
|
On April 26 2017 22:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 21:52 a_flayer wrote:
So you genuinely don't think that there should be both people who are moderate in their political beliefs and people who have strong political beliefs? Everyone has to show the same flexibility regarding which candidate they vote for regardless of their own ideological views versus that of the candidate? That seems like such an odd position to hold.
I certainly wouldn't expect all Hillary Clinton voters to be on board with Bernie Sanders. I'd have expected a lot more voters to vote for Bernie rather than abstain though, compared to the amount of potential Bernie voters who went to Trump or abstained. But, again, rather than expecting people to fall in line, or calling them names (such as immature, dumb, or pieces of shit -- all of which I've seen in this thread), I'd leave it up to them. In a winner takes all race? Yes, you need to pragmatic and accept that you might have to vote for a candidate you don't like because the other option(s) are even worse.
Especially in a system like the French one, where you already had a run-off race, and your preferred choice did not get enough support. It's time to accept your preferred choice is not supported by enough people, and to choose your least worst choice of those remaining.
That said, instant runoff would work so much better for an election like this, if only the technical details (including educating people on how it works) were not so hard.
|
On April 26 2017 22:11 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 19:23 Noizhende wrote:If you look at where the political compass puts the candidates it's more obvious why it's not so obvious if Melenchon voters will prefer Macron over Le Pen. https://www.politicalcompass.org/france2017although the placement might be quite controversial... Macron's program being as "authoritarian" as Mélenchon's and Hamon's ? That's BS unrelated sidenote : it's kinda funny to see Mélenchon's supporters blaming Hamon for not retiring, while the same people were absolutely refusing to retire Mélechon from the race when Hamon was at 15% and Mélenchon at 10% in the polls^^
Hamon didn't even need to withdraw, simply respecting his non-agression pact and making some small gestures/hints would have been enough. Instead of that he polarized on purpose in the last week on their differences so that he would retain enough voters to be above 5% and get refunded (getting millions of euros for the party which constantly betrayed him was more important for him than the left having a chance to reach the second round; he knew his priorities...). Those few hundreds of thousands of votes cost Mélenchon the second round. Had the situation been reversed (Hamon near 20%, Mélenchon at 6-7) the PS would have fired at him 24/7 and called him all kind of names for “stealing” their victory and whatnot. Meanwhile Mélenchon never asked anything of Hamon after their non-agression pact. The arrogance of those social-democrats is insane, there is never the slightest reciprocity with them, the radical left reluctantly accepted to vote for them for years; and when for once the time has come to return the favour, there's no one? I'm so happy they made only 6%, might finally teach them some goddamn humility
|
France12886 Posts
On April 26 2017 22:26 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 22:11 OtherWorld wrote:On April 26 2017 19:23 Noizhende wrote:If you look at where the political compass puts the candidates it's more obvious why it's not so obvious if Melenchon voters will prefer Macron over Le Pen. https://www.politicalcompass.org/france2017although the placement might be quite controversial... Macron's program being as "authoritarian" as Mélenchon's and Hamon's ? That's BS unrelated sidenote : it's kinda funny to see Mélenchon's supporters blaming Hamon for not retiring, while the same people were absolutely refusing to retire Mélechon from the race when Hamon was at 15% and Mélenchon at 10% in the polls^^ Hamon didn't even need to withdraw, simply respecting his non-agression pact and making some small gestures/hints would have been enough. Instead of that he polarized on purpose in the last week on their differences so that he would retain enough voters to be above 5% and get refunded (getting millions of euros for the party which constantly betrayed him was more important for him than the left having a chance to reach the second round; he knew his priorities...). Those few hundreds of thousands of votes cost Mélenchon the second round. Had the situation been reversed (Hamon near 20%, Mélenchon at 6-7) the PS would have fired at him 24/7 and called him all kind of names for “stealing” their victory and whatnot. Meanwhile Mélenchon never asked anything of Hamon after their non-agression pact. The arrogance of those social-democrats is insane, there is never the slightest reciprocity with them, the radical left reluctantly accepted to vote for them for years; and when for once the time has come to return the favour, there's no one? I'm so happy they made only 6%, might finally teach them some goddamn humility
It's now a fact that the strategy of going from Hamon to Melenchon didn't work, so could you please at least use common sense and realize that we now know that the other strategy might have been the solution?
There's no one? A lot of people actually switched from Hamon to Melenchon, and that's how you thank them? 
Being so loud instead of using your brain was funny at first, but it's getting annoying.
|
On April 26 2017 22:17 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 22:13 Gorsameth wrote:On April 26 2017 21:52 a_flayer wrote:
So you genuinely don't think that there should be both people who are moderate in their political beliefs and people who have strong political beliefs? Everyone has to show the same flexibility regarding which candidate they vote for regardless of their own ideological views versus that of the candidate? That seems like such an odd position to hold.
I certainly wouldn't expect all Hillary Clinton voters to be on board with Bernie Sanders. I'd have expected a lot more voters to vote for Bernie rather than abstain though, compared to the amount of potential Bernie voters who went to Trump or abstained. But, again, rather than expecting people to fall in line, or calling them names (such as immature, dumb, or pieces of shit -- all of which I've seen in this thread), I'd leave it up to them. In a winner takes all race? Yes, you need to pragmatic and accept that you might have to vote for a candidate you don't like because the other option(s) are even worse. Especially in a system like the French one, where you already had a run-off race, and your preferred choice did not get enough support. It's time to accept your preferred choice is not supported by enough people, and to choose your least worst choice of those remaining. That said, instant runoff would work so much better for an election like this, if only the technical details (including educating people on how it works) were not so hard.
Instant runoff sounds better but sometimes it's better to treat your voters like 5 year olds. We tried new ballots in local elections in 2014 and a party that usually polls between 4 and 10 % had a wonderful 23% result because they got lucky and their candidates were listed on the first page of the ballot (it had a book form). Some dummies thought they had to pick someone from the first page and didn't bother reading the rest.
|
TheDwf has a point though, for years the french left has been talking about unity and strategical voting when trying to get the far left people to vote socdem. Now we get a situation where the reverse is true and the strategical vote would be far left given the polling, and suddenly unity talk goes out the window, almost as if they were full of shit this whole time. The hypocrysy is hard to shake. I voted for Mélenchon even though Hamon would have been my first choice on the substance and I expect a lot of french people did the same given the results, and I sincerely hope the next socdem who talks about unity gets destroyed.
|
On April 26 2017 22:34 Poopi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 22:26 TheDwf wrote:On April 26 2017 22:11 OtherWorld wrote:On April 26 2017 19:23 Noizhende wrote:If you look at where the political compass puts the candidates it's more obvious why it's not so obvious if Melenchon voters will prefer Macron over Le Pen. https://www.politicalcompass.org/france2017although the placement might be quite controversial... Macron's program being as "authoritarian" as Mélenchon's and Hamon's ? That's BS unrelated sidenote : it's kinda funny to see Mélenchon's supporters blaming Hamon for not retiring, while the same people were absolutely refusing to retire Mélechon from the race when Hamon was at 15% and Mélenchon at 10% in the polls^^ Hamon didn't even need to withdraw, simply respecting his non-agression pact and making some small gestures/hints would have been enough. Instead of that he polarized on purpose in the last week on their differences so that he would retain enough voters to be above 5% and get refunded (getting millions of euros for the party which constantly betrayed him was more important for him than the left having a chance to reach the second round; he knew his priorities...). Those few hundreds of thousands of votes cost Mélenchon the second round. Had the situation been reversed (Hamon near 20%, Mélenchon at 6-7) the PS would have fired at him 24/7 and called him all kind of names for “stealing” their victory and whatnot. Meanwhile Mélenchon never asked anything of Hamon after their non-agression pact. The arrogance of those social-democrats is insane, there is never the slightest reciprocity with them, the radical left reluctantly accepted to vote for them for years; and when for once the time has come to return the favour, there's no one? I'm so happy they made only 6%, might finally teach them some goddamn humility It's now a fact that the strategy of going from Hamon to Melenchon didn't work, so could you please at least use common sense and realize that we now know that the other strategy might have been the solution? There's no one? A lot of people actually switched from Hamon to Melenchon, and that's how you thank them? Being so loud instead of using your brain was funny at first, but it's getting annoying.
It's not a fact since there were still vote reserves at the end. How many of them would made the switch if the vote was done again now? The other way around would not have worked because a part of the left did not want to hear about the PS anymore and wanted to make it pay for Hollande's mandate. Just the day after Hamon's triumph, when he was in full light and power, hailed as some savior of the left, Mélenchon was still at 9% when Hamon was at 18%. The end result was 20 vs 6, so Mélenchon's floor was higher than Hamon's one. Thus Mélenchon, not linked with the PS, was a better vehicle for the left. You would know it if you had been in the demonstrations against the labour reform where the anger towards the PS was immense
Don't feel forced to react to my posts if they bother you, I'll do the same with you
Edit: also I do thank people who made the switch/sacrifice, I'm talking about Hamon's attitude and his close supporters
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
