Le Pen OUT!!!

[daib0]

Le Pen has stepped down as head of the National Front party.

No idea what ramifications this has, any French political experts out there?
Blimey, who would have seen that coming.

Here's the BBC's announcement ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39696861

[skalpel]

It's just a temporary thing. As far as I see it, she's trying to make the final vote seem like two independents facing off. She's expected to lose, so making it seem like more of a level playing field is in her best interests. Plus, by further distancing herself from the FN's age old racist image, as well as appearing more interested in presidency than party politics, she's hoping to broaden her reach.

Ultimately I think she'll lose this election, but after a Macron presidency, if nobody else comes along with a really convincing plan for change in France, she'll probably make an even better run at it next time tbh.

[Hjl]

Interestingly trump had similar numbers before winning,

[skalpel]

There's no full comparison between Le Pen and Trump, let alone Macron and Clinton. In fact in this case, Macron is the inexperienced political outsider with bags of money and a life of work in big business while Le Pen comes from a political dynasty and has a background in law.

But yeah, there's the possibility that a chunk of those who voted for Melanchon could be so nauseated by the prospect of a Macron presidency that they'd vote Le Pen, and we will likely see her play down her nativist sentiment over the coming couple of weeks to try and woo as many of these people as possible. Iirc similar happened with some Sanders voters switching to Trump.

[Hjl]

There's no full comparison between Le Pen and Trump, let alone Macron and Clinton. In fact in this case, Macron is the inexperienced political outsider with bags of money and a life of work in big business while Le Pen comes from a political dynasty and has a background in law.

But yeah, there's the possibility that a chunk of those who voted for Melanchon could be so nauseated by the prospect of a Macron presidency that they'd vote Le Pen, and we will likely see her play down her nativist sentiment over the coming couple of weeks to try and woo as many of these people as possible. Iirc similar happened with some Sanders voters switching to Trump.

More a comment that large advantages have been overturned fairly frequently recently.

[skalpel]

There's no full comparison between Le Pen and Trump, let alone Macron and Clinton. In fact in this case, Macron is the inexperienced political outsider with bags of money and a life of work in big business while Le Pen comes from a political dynasty and has a background in law.

But yeah, there's the possibility that a chunk of those who voted for Melanchon could be so nauseated by the prospect of a Macron presidency that they'd vote Le Pen, and we will likely see her play down her nativist sentiment over the coming couple of weeks to try and woo as many of these people as possible. Iirc similar happened with some Sanders voters switching to Trump.

More a comment that large advantages have been overturned fairly frequently recently.

Yeah, I think that that has a fair bit to do with my second paragraph there. Anti-establishment feeling is hard to poll properly when there's a lot of it about. It's been the most important aspect of basically all recent elections in the West; some people want change at nearly any cost and will jump all over the political spectrum to get it.

[Colback's Orange Tufts]

There's no full comparison between Le Pen and Trump, let alone Macron and Clinton. In fact in this case, Macron is the inexperienced political outsider with bags of money and a life of work in big business while Le Pen comes from a political dynasty and has a background in law.

But yeah, there's the possibility that a chunk of those who voted for Melanchon could be so nauseated by the prospect of a Macron presidency that they'd vote Le Pen, and we will likely see her play down her nativist sentiment over the coming couple of weeks to try and woo as many of these people as possible. Iirc similar happened with some Sanders voters switching to Trump.

More a comment that large advantages have been overturned fairly frequently recently.

The run off is a direct count though. Trump lost the popular vote but won due to intricacies of electoral college, the polling was actually pretty good at predicting the popular vote.

[daib0]

Macron on the 'Brexit' ...

[Lidl]

Can't say he's particularly wrong about much there.

[overseasTOON]

Macron on the 'Brexit' ...

We could always invade.

[skalpel]

Can't say he's particularly wrong about much there.

Except his use of "Europe" as a synonym of "The European Union", which his ilk is wont to do as often as possible in order to discourage critique and keep the more bovine masses convinced that there is no difference between the two. And except his hubristic, almost funny, placement of himself as an authority on strategic vision when he was the most visionless dependent of the status quo of the top 4 (all bad) candidates at the election.

And except for his idea that the EU (his word: Europe) has been the sole enabler of peace, security, freedom and prosperity in postwar Europe, which is exactly the kind of simplistic thinking you'd expect in a short burst of anti-BrexitBritain huffing. And ironically enough, his country is currently going through a serious series of crises directly related to peace, security, freedom and prosperity, on a scale worse than in Britain: way larger problems with immigration, integration and extremist Islam; armed police guarding synagogues, transport hubs and streets in cities around the nation; 34% vote share for the leader of a two-bit cryptofascist "party"; debt at almost 100% GDP and growth low. It comes as no surprise that he's quick to deflect expressions like "turmoil", "falling apart", and "crisis" elsewhere.

[Sir Bobby]

Can't say he's particularly wrong about much there.

Except his use of "Europe" as a synonym of "The European Union", which his ilk is wont to do as often as possible in order to discourage critique and keep the more bovine masses convinced that there is no difference between the two. And except his hubristic, almost funny, placement of himself as an authority on strategic vision when he was the most visionless dependent of the status quo of the top 4 (all bad) candidates at the election.

And except for his idea that the EU (his word: Europe) has been the sole enabler of peace, security, freedom and prosperity in postwar Europe, which is exactly the kind of simplistic thinking you'd expect in a short burst of anti-BrexitBritain huffing. And ironically enough, his country is currently going through a serious series of crises directly related to peace, security, freedom and prosperity, on a scale worse than in Britain: way larger problems with immigration, integration and extremist Islam; armed police guarding synagogues, transport hubs and streets in cities around the nation; 34% vote share for the leader of a two-bit cryptofascist "party"; debt at almost 100% GDP and growth low. It comes as no surprise that he's quick to deflect expressions like "turmoil", "falling apart", and "crisis" elsewhere.

And except for his implication that we are currently not in submission to the EU but are going to be in submission to the US. His idea that potential servitude to the US would be greater than any current or future servitude to the EU is frankly lies. And although the US doesn't seem like the best country to align oneself with right now, it tends to have a GDP growth rate of around 4x that of the stagnant EU's so not exactly the worst country to start aligning with when it comes to the less myopic outlook