The Next President of France will be...

Rjd2

Chuchote wrote: »

There have already been Macron leaks, some simply lies, some badly aimed at a French population liable to shrug, make that ppff noise and mutter "Ah bon?"

Good point, think there was also some on Le Pen to brave their is no bias.:P

An Ciarraioch

https://mobile.twitter.com/emilyrs/status/860614924623646721/photo/1

Chuchote

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/french-election-macron-campaign-emails-leaked-online-1.3073487

French election: Macron campaign emails leaked online
En Marche! movement subjected to a ‘massive and co-ordinated hack’

A large trove of emails purporting to be from the campaign of French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron was posted online late on Friday, as voters prepare to go to the polls to choose the country’s next president on Sunday.
Some nine gigabytes of data were posted by a user called EMLEAKS to Pastebin, a document-sharing site that allows anonymous posting. It was not immediately clear who was responsible for posting the data.
In a statement, Macron’s political movement En Marche!! confirmed it had been hacked.

iroced

Bob24 wrote: »

Also there were 16.8 million viewers for the debate, which with 60% of viewers is a lot compared to any other television program at the time (including the football ;-)) but a bit poor compared to previous second round debates.

Monaco was playing on Canal+ (or Bein - can't remember, I had it on streaming right beside the presidential debate :pac:). Anyway pay TV.
Monaco does not have a huge supporting base too.

If it was PSG on TF1 like in the 90ies Champions League evenings, I'd say they'd have postponed the debate !

Bob24 wrote: »

But she's right though, 40% would already be a good achievement for them as last time the party made it to the second round it remained stuck with the 17% it got at the first round (and if it is their new upper ceiling, it give them potential to get MP seats in the many constituencies where there will be 3 or 4 candidates in the second round). I think she made a mistake to set that target though, especially with the poor performance at the debate they could be slightly below which in her own words would not be a victory any-more.

These percentage may not mean a lot though if abstention and blank votes are very important. We'd then have to compare the actual amount of votes!

Bob24

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/wikileaks

Supposedly a Macron leak on its way. Obviously Le Pen would be the ideal choice for those behind such a thing, but the timing is very odd.

In a perfect world Russia would have wanted this in play before the first round to cause Macron all sorts of issues. Don't forget Fillon and Melenchon are pro Russia so either of them or Le Pen making up the 2 spots in the final round would have been perfect for Russia.

Worst case scenario, Russia would have liked this to be leaked on the eve of the election.

Strange.

Yes, if there was a political motive behind this the timing is pretty bad. A bit too late to influence the campaign as since last night midnight French media are not allowed to talk about it anymore. Last week or early this week would have been the best time (and you can be sure Le Pen would have given a rant about anything she could find in there at the debate :-D). Or as you said From a Russian point of view before the first round would have been the best time as Fillon, Mélanchon, and Le Pen are all seen as more friendly to Russia than Macron.

Bob24

Chuchote wrote: »

There have already been Macron leaks, some simply lies, some badly aimed at a French population liable to shrug, make that ppff noise and mutter "Ah bon?"

Macron's team confirmed last night that they were hacked and at least of the documents released are genuine : http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/05/06/97001-20170506FILWWW00002-presidentielle-en-marche-se-dit-victime-d-un-piratage-massif.php

Having said that, I don't think anything illegal or dodgy about them has been noted to date and there is a media blackout on the campaign in France for the rest of the weekend. So not much to see for now and it shouldn't impact the vote.

Bob24

iroced wrote: »

These percentage may not mean a lot though if abstention and blank votes are very important. We'd then have to compare the actual amount of votes!

Yes and no. If you think along those lines you can also say that assuming Macron gets 60%, taking abstention into account he will most likely have gather 50% of registered voters so his election doesn't mean a lot. But still he will be the next president so at the end of the day it doesn't many how many people voted.

KindOfIrish

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

One could argue that Germany's CDU are the most effective mainstream right European party when it comes to dealing with both Islam and immigration - they call out extreme groups preaching in mosques and expect newcomers to immigrate, but correctly put such topics in the background and concentrate on economic and foreign policy issues. As the debate showed, once the FN are forced to discuss mundane issues, they've few constructive ideas.

FN is there to destroy, not to construct. Why would Russia give them money to do anything constructive? It's exactly the same as with Brexit. English extremists got the Brexit almost a year ago and still they don't know what to do with it.

Chuchote

It was cunning to release the hacked emails at exactly the point when French media are forbidden by law from commenting on the election. So sensational accusations can rage across social media without the moderating sensibleness or real journalists and others.

The Financial Times has a good piece on the battle between Macron's "legal France" and Le Pen's "real France", tracking it back to the philosophy of the right-winger Charles Maurras, and saying that in 1927, when France had made it easier for immigrants to become citizens, Le Figaro wrote: “Three million vigorous, healthy, honest Frenchmen have been shipped to the slaughterhouse so they could be replaced by the world’s vermin.”

The piece is headlined "Macron, Le Pen and the battle for the idea of France"

Professor Moriarty

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes and no. If you think along those lines you can also say that assuming Macron gets 60%, taking abstention into account he will most likely have gather 50% of registered voters so his election doesn't mean a lot. But still he will be the next president so at the end of the day it doesn't many how many people voted.

It means a lot more than in other jurisdictions. The Tories were handed absolute power by 25% of eligible voters in Britain.

Bob24

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes and no. If you think along those lines you can also say that assuming Macron gets 60%, taking abstention into account he will most likely have gather 50% of registered voters so his election doesn't mean a lot. But still he will be the next president so at the end of the day it doesn't many how many people voted.

It means a lot more than in other jurisdictions. The Tories were handed absolute power by 25% of eligible voters in Britain.

Oh I agree. But then being consistent the score Le Pen gets shouldn't be underplayed either because of abstention. That was my point: either use abstention as an argument to minimise the score of both candidates or none, but not just one of them.

RandomName2

Jamiekelly wrote: »

You didn't even get to the end of your first paragraph before undermining your own message.

- Accuse someone of demonizing other points of view.
- Claim to know said person's political point of view.
- Confirm it to yourself without reply or confirmation from the person.
- Engage in a "demonizing" tirade against people with a different view to you based on an unproven assumption.

The guy he quoted said that if the French are as idiotic as Americans, they will elect Le Pen.

Am I missing something? This... is your rebuttal. :pac:

Jamiekelly wrote: »

Simply disagreeing with someone in a blunt manner is not "demonizing" them. After all, politics is division by definition. Why are people so hypersensitive to the idea that stupid people exist?

SOme of the electorate is stupid. Some stupid people will vote for Macron, some stupid people will vote for Le Pen. Saying that someone will vote a certain way because they are stupid would be pejorative. You'd have to be pretty stupid to think otherwise.

Jamiekelly wrote: »

If someone tells me the earth is flat I reserve the right to tell them they're an idiot.

You'd be doing a better service to science by telling them why they are wrong, preferably without calling them an idiot at the same time.

Jamiekelly wrote: »

If Donald Trump can essentially call for his supporters to use their "second amendment" right in the event of him losing an election then I would call him a violence inducing fascist scumbag.

Scumbag, sure, but I'm not sure you know what fascism is.

Jamiekelly wrote: »

Just because you want to hear a politician talk about Islam and immigration in a meaningful way does not mean I have to listen to a polished turd and pretend its a diamond just because people feel "angry" at the establishment.

Who said anything about compressed carbon?

Jamiekelly wrote: »

Basing your politics on one or two issues alone and using feelings to justify those views sounds very childish to me. Almost "snowflake-y" sorry couldn't resist

Really attempting to shoehorn the insult against SJWs in there, aren't you? Le Pen is known as a candidate very light on policy, to the detriment of her campaign. However, voting for her is essentially voting for Frexit - that's kind of a big issue... hand-waving Frexit as something that doesn't have any real substance is odd in the extreme on your part. Whether she would actually intend or be able to pull France out of the EU if she were elected is another matter - but certainly a lot of French people are more than a little disillusioned with the European federation.

Christy42

RandomName2 wrote: »

The guy he quoted said that if the French are as idiotic as Americans, they will elect Le Pen.

Am I missing something? This... is your rebuttal. :pac:



SOme of the electorate is stupid. Some stupid people will vote for Macron, some stupid people will vote for Le Pen. Saying that someone will vote a certain way because they are stupid would be pejorative. You'd have to be pretty stupid to think otherwise.



You'd be doing a better service to science by telling them why they are wrong, preferably without calling them an idiot at the same time.



Scumbag, sure, but I'm not sure you know what fascism is.



Who said anything about compressed carbon?



Really attempting to shoehorn the insult against SJWs in there, aren't you? Le Pen is known as a candidate very light on policy, to the detriment of her campaign. However, voting for her is essentially voting for Frexit - that's kind of a big issue... hand-waving Frexit as something that doesn't have any real substance is odd in the extreme on your part. Whether she would actually intend or be able to pull France out of the EU if she were elected is another matter - but certainly a lot of French people are more than a little disillusioned with the European federation.

Pretty sure that was an anti Le Pen post. The snowflake comment was pointing out how upset those who complain about snowflakes get when insulted.

CelticRambler

Chuchote wrote: »

... when French media are forbidden by law from commenting on the election ...

I think the mainstream media are getting frustrated, knowing that any old Thom, Deek or 'Arry can "real all about it" on the internet.

France Musique had a whole programme this morning devoted to "the music and musicians of la Résistance". I can't believe that was entirely coincidental ... :cool:

CrabRevolution

RandomName2 wrote: »

You'd be doing a better service to science by telling them why they are wrong, preferably without calling them an idiot at the same time.

There are many many people who have tried to do a service to science, and history and economics, and just about everything by explaining the various inaccuracies and false promises of Brexit, Trump etc.

This conflicts with the incredibly passionately held Brexit view though, so is dismissed as inherently wrong. This results in the media and those in authority telling people that any fact they don't like can be dismissed as false: "Britain has had enough of experts", "alternative facts" "the press are the enemy of the people".

So in your scenario: where (in service of science) I try to explain how the world is actually roughly a sphere, using all the evidence I can muster to flesh out my point.

There's a 1% chance the person will say "Oh yeah, now that you point that out, it's clear to me that the world isn't flat".

There's a 99% chance that they'll say "I'm not changing my opinion, you're wrong, your evidence is fake and the world is flat". Then we're back to square one.

Hank Scorpio

Interesting timing with the Macron leaks, too late in the game to have any influence.

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Interesting timing with the Macron leaks, too late in the game to have any influence.

Very precise timing. Last sting of a dying wasp, hopefully.

RandomName2

CrabRevolution wrote: »

There are many many people who have tried to do a service to science, and history and economics, and just about everything by explaining the various inaccuracies and false promises of Brexit, Trump etc.

This conflicts with the incredibly passionately held Brexit view though, so is dismissed as inherently wrong. This results in the media and those in authority telling people that any fact they don't like can be dismissed as false: "Britain has had enough of experts", "alternative facts" "the press are the enemy of the people".

So in your scenario: where (in service of science) I try to explain how the world is actually roughly a sphere, using all the evidence I can muster to flesh out my point.

There's a 1% chance the person will say "Oh yeah, now that you point that out, it's clear to me that the world isn't flat".

There's a 99% chance that they'll say "I'm not changing my opinion, you're wrong, your evidence is fake and the world is flat". Then we're back to square one.

You are clearly right, it is much better to call people who disagree with you "idiots". :pac:

On a more serious note, there are problems when it comes to conjecture, and also the habit for absolutist views to be less than 100% correct, regardless of where they lie on the political compass.

Absolutist Brexiters are wrong: those that say that there are no economic benefits to being in the EU, or that leaving the EU will solve all the problems the UK currently face.

On the other hand, absolutist .... .... unionists? .... are also incorrect if they say that EU membership has no cost, is the reason there haven't been any wars between its members, isn't run behind closed doors by gravy-train bureaucrats who have scant regard for popular views, etc.

Both sides feel that being somewhat candid with the truth (or "streamlining their overall message") is justified, as on the whole they are right, and their opponents are unpatriotic traitors (on one side) or nationalistic idiots (on the other.

But these extreme positions leave no room for the middle ground. Obviously some people are not interested in finding a middle ground. Nicola Sturgeon would be no more interested in accepting that there are financial incentives to staying in the union with the UK, than Nigel Farage would in relation to the EU.

But leaving aside the handful of people with personal vested interests you have millions and millions of people, ordinary folk, who are perfectly intelligent and capable of understanding properly formulated arguments. The fact that... liberals.... have a habit recently of labelling 10s of millions of people "idiots" because they don't happen to be on the same page, doesn't augur particularly well for the quality of debate that is going to be used to address the concerns of both parties in the immediate future.

Christy42

RandomName2 wrote: »

You are clearly right, it is much better to call people who disagree with you "idiots". :pac:

On a more serious note, there are problems when it comes to conjecture, and also the habit for absolutist views to be less than 100% correct, regardless of where they lie on the political compass.

Absolutist Brexiters are wrong: those that say that there are no economic benefits to being in the EU, or that leaving the EU will solve all the problems the UK currently face.

On the other hand, absolutist .... .... unionists? .... are also incorrect if they say that EU membership has no cost, is the reason there haven't been any wars between its members, isn't run behind closed doors by gravy-train bureaucrats who have scant regard for popular views, etc.

Both sides feel that being somewhat candid with the truth (or "streamlining their overall message") is justified, as on the whole they are right, and their opponents are unpatriotic traitors (on one side) or nationalistic idiots (on the other.

But these extreme positions leave no room for the middle ground. Obviously some people are not interested in finding a middle ground. Nicola Sturgeon would be no more interested in accepting that there are financial incentives to staying in the union with the UK, than Nigel Farage would in relation to the EU.

But leaving aside the handful of people with personal vested interests you have millions and millions of people, ordinary folk, who are perfectly intelligent and capable of understanding properly formulated arguments. The fact that... liberals.... have a habit recently of labelling 10s of millions of people "idiots" because they don't happen to be on the same page, doesn't augur particularly well for the quality of debate that is going to be used to address the concerns of both parties in the immediate future.

The issue with always going for the middle ground is that you just get pulled further in a direction as people get more and more extreme. I mean people keep calling for a middle ground between democrats and republicans as the right way of doing things which rather sucks for the left wing as you just get the middle ground of a centerist and a very very right wing party. Plus some choices are relatively binary - leave the UK or stay, leave the EU or stay. I mean a soft leaving might go someway towards it but it is definitely slanted towards the leave side.

As for calling millions of people idiots, well sometimes it is an accurate statement. http://www.businessinsider.com/33-of-americans-dont-believe-in-evolution-2013-12?IR=T Plus given how anti snowflake the extreme right is I can't imagine they will take any offense at someone speaking their mind and telling it like they see it right?

Granted I don't think all Trump or LePen voters are idiots but I do feel it is a terrible choice against their self interest. One bad choice does not make an idiot however.

RandomName2

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Interesting timing with the Macron leaks, too late in the game to have any influence.

It will probably give Macron a small boost, but as there is a moratorium in effect it's hard to work out if will have any major impact.

On a side note I think it's ironic that this should happen to Macron, the one candidate who believes that civil liberties should be eroded in favour of government spying on its citizens (to protect against terrorism) - the old "if you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" cliché

RandomName2

Christy42 wrote: »

As for calling millions of people idiots, well sometimes it is an accurate statement. http://www.businessinsider.com/33-of-americans-dont-believe-in-evolution-2013-12?IR=T Plus given how anti snowflake the extreme right is I can't imagine they will take any offense at someone speaking their mind and telling it like they see it right?

That's a pretty small cohort (less than 2,000 in that poll), but if that is representative, as it suggests, that should be concerning for America. The root may lie in poor education (if the responses were honest), but in a day-and-age where information is freely available online .... [shrugs]

Christy42 wrote: »

Granted I don't think all Trump or LePen voters are idiots but I do feel it is a terrible choice against their self interest. One bad choice does not make an idiot however.

Perhaps, but bear in mind that the choice isn't in a vacuum. If you don't have Trump, you have Clinton, if you don't have LePen you have Macron, etc. Even in relation to Brexit you could see voters thinking "when is the next time we will be asked our opinion on this? Thirty years' time?"

So the argument can't be that Trump or LePen are 'bad', but that they are 'more bad'. Instead of the contest between Chirac and JMLP, where many described it as a choice between a crook and a fascist (and therefore choosing a crook), the media has been lapping up Macron. Make no mistake, Macron getting elected is bad news for Ireland, just less bad, perhaps, than LePen. In an ideal world we'd again have a crook at the helm (Fillon).

Christy42

RandomName2 wrote: »

That's a pretty small cohort (less than 2,000 in that poll), but if that is representative, as it suggests, that should be concerning for America. The root may lie in poor education (if the responses were honest), but in a day-and-age where information is freely available online .... [shrugs]



Perhaps, but bear in mind that the choice isn't in a vacuum. If you don't have Trump, you have Clinton, if you don't have LePen you have Macron, etc. Even in relation to Brexit you could see voters thinking "when is the next time we will be asked our opinion on this? Thirty years' time?"

So the argument can't be that Trump or LePen are 'bad', but that they are 'more bad'. Instead of the contest between Chirac and JMLP, where many described it as a choice between a crook and a fascist (and therefore choosing a crook), the media has been lapping up Macron. Make no mistake, Macron getting elected is bad news for Ireland, just less bad, perhaps, than LePen. In an ideal world we'd again have a crook at the helm (Fillon).

There were previous rounds in both elections if the people in question disagreed with those choices. I mean the electoral systems is far from perfect in both countries but the fact remains it was hardly two choices in both cases.

An Ciarraioch

RandomName2 wrote: »

That's a pretty small cohort (less than 2,000 in that poll), but if that is representative, as it suggests, that should be concerning for America. The root may lie in poor education (if the responses were honest), but in a day-and-age where information is freely available online .... [shrugs]



Perhaps, but bear in mind that the choice isn't in a vacuum. If you don't have Trump, you have Clinton, if you don't have LePen you have Macron, etc. Even in relation to Brexit you could see voters thinking "when is the next time we will be asked our opinion on this? Thirty years' time?"

So the argument can't be that Trump or LePen are 'bad', but that they are 'more bad'. Instead of the contest between Chirac and JMLP, where many described it as a choice between a crook and a fascist (and therefore choosing a crook), the media has been lapping up Macron. Make no mistake, Macron getting elected is bad news for Ireland, just less bad, perhaps, than LePen. In an ideal world we'd again have a crook at the helm (Fillon).

In an ideal world, the leading left candidate would have been pro-EU, but in the absence of same, Macron was the "least worst" of the first-round field.

Chuchote

Christy42 wrote: »

The issue with always going for the middle ground is that you just get pulled further in a direction as people get more and more extreme.

This was the theme of the TV series Borgen, which was so excellent in its first season.

CelticRambler wrote: »

France Musique had a whole programme this morning devoted to "the music and musicians of la Résistance". I can't believe that was entirely coincidental ... :cool:

Is there a podcast? Link?

… ah, found it, I think - "Résister par la musique"? (Though it seems, bizarrely, to start with Itsy-Bitsy Teeny-Weeny Yellow Polka-Dot Bikini, which doesn't, to be honest, call up the stark heroism of the French Résistance for me.

Billy86

Can't find a youtube video of it, but the queue for voting in Toronto (think it's from the first round, have a vague memory of seeing this a week or two back also)... https://www.facebook.com/iciontario/videos/1303850462996293/?pnref=story

Kitsunegari

oscarBravo wrote: »

With respect, that remains a mind-numbingly vacuous argument.

If I have bread and water every day for a month, and then I have the option of either more bread and water or a sh*t sandwich, I'd have to be quite the idiot to vote for change. You're parroting the utterly bizarre idea that change is of necessity a positive thing, as if the status quo is always inherently the worst option.

I never suggested the status quo was always inherently the worst option. Also, your completely oversimplifying the whole process on why you vote in the first place. Have you you ever heard of a protest vote?

Not the first time you've engaged in strawman tactics when replying to me.

oscarBravo

Kitsunegari wrote: »

I never suggested the status quo was always inherently the worst option.

You implied precisely that when you said "like it or not Trump was the only option to vote for change."

The only reason to vote for change for change's sake is if the status quo is inherently the worst option. If the status quo isn't inherently the worst option - if it's possible that the status quo is the better of two choices - then the fact that someone is "the only option for change" is irrelevant.

You can't have it both ways.

Also, your completely oversimplifying the whole process on why you vote in the first place. Have you you ever heard of a protest vote?

The problem with protest votes is that they have precisely the same validity as votes cast by people who actually think through the consequences of their votes.

"I voted for a narcissistic idiot who will almost certainly make my life worse in almost every conceivable way. That showed 'em!"

Hasschu

Coming out of PasteBin and Archives Macron Leaks, most of it is blocked.
Are Emmanuel Macron's Tax Evasion Documents Real? - GotNews

Kitsunegari

oscarBravo wrote: »

You implied precisely that when you said "like it or not Trump was the only option to vote for change."

The only reason to vote for change for change's sake is if the status quo is inherently the worst option. If the status quo isn't inherently the worst option - if it's possible that the status quo is the better of two choices - then the fact that someone is "the only option for change" is irrelevant.

You can't have it both ways. The problem with protest votes is that they have precisely the same validity as votes cast by people who actually think through the consequences of their votes.

"I voted for a narcissistic idiot who will almost certainly make my life worse in almost every conceivable way. That showed 'em!"

You're trying to misrepresent what I said. Rationale isn't always used when casting a vote and if you can't see the logic of how voting for Trump was a vote for change then you're oversimplifying the whole process by assuming you only vote for the best overall candidate all the time. That doesn't happen, a lot.

Hande hoche!

Hasschu wrote: »

Coming out of PasteBin and Archives Macron Leaks, most of it is blocked.
Are Emmanuel Macron's Tax Evasion Documents Real? - GotNews

Tinfoil hat time but anyway, they might find something actionable. Then the main French parties can impeach Macron and have a new election. Hair brained theory I have seen doing the rounds.

Chuchote

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Tinfoil hat time but anyway, they might find something actionable. Then the main French parties can impeach Macron and have a new election. Hair brained theory I have seen doing the rounds.

Heh, harebrained ok; as if the main French parties would want rid of Macron!

RandomName2 wrote: »

It will probably give Macron a small boost, but as there is a moratorium in effect it's hard to work out if will have any major impact.

On a side note I think it's ironic that this should happen to Macron, the one candidate who believes that civil liberties should be eroded in favour of government spying on its citizens (to protect against terrorism) - the old "if you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" cliché

This may be a good thing; if Macron experiences having his legitimate campaign materials stolen and mixed in with fake documents, it may lessen his enthusiasm for state snooping.

Yourself isit

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

In an ideal world, the leading left candidate would have been pro-EU, but in the absence of same, Macron was the "least worst" of the first-round field.

Why would that be "ideal"? The French left was anti-EU for a lot of its history. Communists in particular.

The confusion is that the modern left is really what used to be called "bourgeois liberal". Macron is the exemplar of that philosophy. Banker. Bureaucrat . Elite. Socially liberal.

In Ireland, lacking any kind of industrial proletariat, the left was - post war anyway - just bourgeois liberal.

Yourself isit

oscarBravo wrote: »

You implied precisely that when you said "like it or not Trump was the only option to vote for change."

The only reason to vote for change for change's sake is if the status quo is inherently the worst option. If the status quo isn't inherently the worst option - if it's possible that the status quo is the better of two choices - then the fact that someone is "the only option for change" is irrelevant.

You can't have it both ways. The problem with protest votes is that they have precisely the same validity as votes cast by people who actually think through the consequences of their votes.

"I voted for a narcissistic idiot who will almost certainly make my life worse in almost every conceivable way. That showed 'em!"

Arguably Irish independence made peoples lives worse than before, the Russian communist revolution also did. If many people are disgusted by the existing regimes or ideologies they lash out.

Chuchote

Yourself isit wrote: »

Arguably Irish independence made peoples lives worse than before, the Russian communist revolution also did. If many people are disgusted by the existing regimes or ideologies they lash out.

Arguably it didn't - for instance, look at the beautiful suburb built by Dublin Corporation at the very start of the clearances of British Empire tenements that were the worst in Europe:

http://www.theirishstory.com/2011/09/07/a-garden-city-the-dublin-corporation-housing-scheme-at-marino-1924/#.WQ8PZbzyvdQ

However, this is thread creep. Hilarious to read the comments on the Daily Mail's piece on the French election - they are scarily right-wing; total Vichyssoise.

ambro25

Chuchote wrote: »

Hilarious to read the comments on the Daily Mail's piece on the French election - they are scarily right-wing; total Vichyssoise.

Doubly so as I'm just back from voting in Leeds, and the bin in the voting booth (in which you put the ballot paper of the candidate whom you don't vote for) was chock-full of LePen tickets. There wasn't a single Macron one.

I checked out of curiosity, to get a feel for the voting sentiment here today, and it doesn't come any more objective than that: in the bin are the ballot papers rejected by voters at the booth.

I stopped just short of taking a photo with my mobile, in case that would cause trouble/invalidate my own vote.

From that poll station at least, as of 11:45 when I left the voting booth, it looked like Macron 100%, LePen 0% so far

Chuchote

Whew, for a moment I thought you said the bin in the voting booth was the one for the candidate people did vote for! Shaky moment there!

Itssoeasy

This should go as the polls suggest shouldn't it ? I say that as the last or so things haven't gone the way the pollsters and expert have predicted in several elections and referendums.

An Ciarraioch

Belgian media certainly think so:

http://www.lesoir.be/1497943/article/actualite/france/2017-05-07/presidentielle-emmanuel-macron-serait-en-tete-avec-plus-62-des-voix-direct

http://www.lalibre.be/actu/france/presidentielle-macron-remporterait-plus-de-60-des-suffrages-suivez-notre-direct-590c7038cd702b5fbe64a92f

4068ac1elhodqr

Itssoeasy wrote: »

This should go as the polls suggest shouldn't it ? I say that as the last or so things haven't gone the way the pollsters and expert have predicted in several elections and referendums.

Unlike Bre-ump, this is looking pretty much a settled case. Bookies have even doubled odds for LP up to 14/1, from 8/1. If Mel was in the final two think he could have been the real value bet and an interesting proposition.

A very very low tournout could close the gap somewhat, but think they'll settle for the young globalist chap, they've not much choice now.

Some would say the consequences of a LP win could be more catastrophic globally than either the Brexit or Trump wins.

4068ac1elhodqr

One 'novelty' newspaper is reporting (incorrectly) a surge in bets for LP.
This doesn't appear to be the case however in the real world.

Rjd2

Mason Sparse Topping wrote: »

Unlike Bre-ump, this is looking pretty much a settled case. Bookies have even doubled odds for LP up to 14/1, from 8/1. If Mel was in the final two think he could have been the real value bet and an interesting proposition.

A very very low tournout could close the gap somewhat, but think they'll settle for the young globalist chap, they've not much choice now.

Some would say the consequences of a LP win could be more catastrophic globally than either the Brexit or Trump wins.

The value was Macron all week when realistically he should have been close to 1.02 or 1.01. Those who say "but brext..." are clueless.

Have backed Macron a few times (posted it earlier in the thread so no aftertiming!), but somewhat annoyed I did not have more on him.

This week really did feel like free money.

Bookies will be happy enough, I know many had horror books on her, but many bet her so safely, they will feel they missed out on some easy money.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

"I voted for a narcissistic idiot who will almost certainly make my life worse in almost every conceivable way. That showed 'em!"

Your summing up of the position of people living in the Rust Belt is worthy of nothing short of a Pulitzer prize.

Inquitus

F?ck off Le Pen and all your racist xenophobic kind, Vive le France, Vive la Republic!

red ears

Inquitus wrote: »

F?ck off Le Pen and all your racist xenophobic kind, Vive le France, Vive le Republic!

Vive mass immigration and good bye le republic.

snowflaker

65% some win!

ancapailldorcha

Inquitus wrote: »

F?ck off Le Pen and all your racist xenophobic kind, Vive le France, Vive le Republic!

red ears wrote: »

Vive mass immigration and good bye le republic.

Less of this crap posting please.

4068ac1elhodqr

Rjd2 wrote: »

The value was Macron all week when realistically he should have been close to 1.02 or 1.01. Those who say "but brext..." are clueless.

Have backed Macron a few times (posted it earlier in the thread so no aftertiming!), but somewhat annoyed I did not have more on him.

This week really did feel like free money.

Bookies will be happy enough, I know many had horror books on her, but many bet her so safely, they will feel they missed out on some easy money.

BFS have 25/1 now for LP. That's staggering high odds, way beyond Bre-ump at this stage of the game. Only Mel could've beaten Macron. If LP had some 'charisme' and offering for the average John-paul, maybe then it would be different.

Interesting to see Trump doing well, as the average Joe now benefits from the lowest jobless rates in 10yrs, and on the other side investment brokers see their stock holdings riding the crest of a wave.

dublinman1990

Macron's projection is at 65.5% of the vote. That is a thumping victory for him if these results are correct.

snowflaker

A bad day for the Alt-Right! So deighted!

BorneTobyWilde

A vote against, not a vote for.
Politics are going crazy. It's now a case of voting against rather than for. Who is the least vile candidate .