European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 888

On June 12 2017 03:05 Nyxisto wrote:
the 'mainstream media' has always favoured certain candidates and derided others, that's true since the printing press exists. Obviously candidates with broad appeal or more moderate positions will have an easier time with established institutions. This weird obsession about 'rigging' is new. What exactly has changed?

People need to shake off the victim complex, losing an election doesn't mean that it's rigged

On June 12 2017 03:21 TheDwf wrote:
Democratic catastrophe:

+ Show Spoiler [Abstention] +
+ Show Spoiler [Votes] +

(Counted FI + PCF for Mélenchon, PS + EELV for Hamon.)

Macron, the most badly elected president of the Vth, will now get the largest majorities with the weakest legitimity:

+ Show Spoiler [% of registered voters for the first p…] +

+ Show Spoiler [First estimations] +
+ Show Spoiler [Seat projection] +

On June 12 2017 03:25 mahrgell wrote:


... because everyone else failed to show up and was more busy counting abstentions.

On June 12 2017 05:36 OtherWorld wrote:
By doing all that he essentially killed the left.

On June 12 2017 05:48 Nebuchad wrote:


I didn't take time to think about everything you wrote so I won't oppose your entire message, but people really need to do away with this whole "the far left kills the left" that seems to pop up just about anywhere these days. The notion can be attacked on the principle of honesty alone cause more centrist leftwingers can change their position left or right on the political scale without ever being accused of anything like that. It takes more to kill a powerful party than someone on their left saying some stuff that people want, and if you don't know that already, you should.

On June 12 2017 05:51 OtherWorld wrote:

I'm not saying the far-left killed the left at all. I'm precisely saying that Mélenchon had his part in killing the left because he tried to be "outside the left/right divide" (like any bland politican tries to be these days, from Le Pen to Macron) instead of assuming his leftism.

On June 12 2017 05:58 Nebuchad wrote:


Had his part I can go with, that's certainly true; but it's true in a not particulary interesting fashion. His part was massively overshadowed by things like Hollande deciding to go with a Loi-Travail that displeases record amounts of people on the left, his own base, or Hamon running a very poor campaign (despite having, in my opinion, a much better program and a much better strategy than Mélenchon on one side and Valls on the other). And despite that it's not really common to hear that those ideas or those people killed the left - not that I want to see it become common, mind you, cause it's not really an interesting murder to discuss, I'd rather talk about the resurrection.

On June 12 2017 03:50 TheDwf wrote:
HAHAHAHA

Farida Amrani (FI) 35%
Manuel Valls (DVG) 30%
Michel Nouaille (PCF) 15%

BYE BYE VALLS
No vote reserves, gone next week barring surprises

On June 12 2017 06:11 stilt wrote:


And El Khomri?

On June 12 2017 05:36 OtherWorld wrote:
Well I mean, it's a bit easy to complain about democracy only when you lose. There are rules, that are far from being perfect, but that allow any party to be democratically represented in Parliament. If FI/FN voters didn't show up, that's their problem. If FI is unhappy with its score, maybe they should show some introspection and look at the way they appear to many voters.

They should examine how terrible it looks when the only text on FI's official leaflet (the thingie they send to you by mail before the election) is from JLM himself, while there isn't a single sentence from the would-be MP, contrarily to all other candidates (expect the fucking UPR). They should consider the message it sends when the would-be MP's picture is in a 5cm circle behind a 50% opacity blue filter, while Mélenchon's head occupies a quarter of the page. A great way to prove the "Mélenchon is an authoritarian messiah" critics wrong and to show that what really matters is "the program", right ?

They should consider what people understand when Mélenchon does what he himself denounced many times, by auto-dropping in a favourable area in order to get an easy seat to Parliament, thus showing once more that he's a master of the "do what I say, not what I do" philosophy. What it means when Mélenchon simplifies the world in a quite extreme way of "the people vs the oligarchy", thus using a classical far-right method of indoctrination, or when he goes from "France has no future without the Arabs and Berbers from the Maghreb" in 2012 to "Anyone should be able to live in its own country" in 2017. "Dégagisme" ? Yes, but not applied to himself, apparently. Will he even resign after this failure, as would happen in any real and half-democratic party or movement, or will he keep being at the head of a movement that only rests on his shoulders ?

Mélenchon went all-in on the Presidential election, with a very successful marketing campaign ; he went for a heavily nationalistic stance, dropping symbols of the far-left/left, trying to use cheap rethoric to bring in people who aren't interested in politics in the first place and only vote for the Presidential election. By doing all that he essentially killed the left, and killed it again with his campaign strategy for the Législatives of trying to be the only left-wing opposition instead of fighting directly against LRM or the FN. Yes, he's a major actor of left-wing opposition, now. But now, left-wing opposition as a whole is less than 20% of the votes. You reap what you sow. But yeah, keep blaming the "mediacrats", the "oligarchy", the "system", that'll get you very far.